save_memory

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

The description discloses side effects (writes via REST API), non-idempotency (each call creates another memory), and that it does not overwrite. This adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then side effect, then usage guidelines. Every sentence adds necessary information without waste.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers purpose, side effect, idempotency, prerequisites (RATARY_API_KEY), and usage guidelines. It is complete for the agent's needs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new persistent coding memory, specifying the resource (memory with title + markdown body) and optional scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_memory and search_memory by focusing on creation.

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 description explicitly states when to use ('after decisions, handoffs, or durable facts') and when not to use ('not for ephemeral chat notes'). It also advises to use get_memory/search_memory first if updating, providing clear context.

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