agent_memory_save

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: storage in a JSON file, safe concurrent reads, and the overwrite parameter's failure condition. It also clarifies the operation type ('created' or 'updated'). This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening purpose, a brief data model note, and labeled sections for Args and Returns. The 'Each entry stores' sentence is slightly redundant but harmless. It is concise enough while providing necessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, persistence model, parameter semantics, and return format. It explains the overwrite edge case and operation result. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema describes all five parameters with 100% coverage. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema text without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description doesn't elevate it further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Persist a key/value memory entry to disk for cross-session recall.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like load, search, or delete. The purpose is unmistakable and avoids ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for cross-session recall' implies the appropriate context for using this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (load, search, delete) make the complementary usage clear. The guidance is implicit but sufficient for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.