palinode_save

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

It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: save may commit despite a timeout, and duplicate risk on retry. This goes beyond the annotations, which only state readOnly/idempotent hints (false). It adds useful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes the most critical usage constraint and a caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (19 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core constraint and timeout edge case but omits broader behaviors like whether save is an upsert, what is returned, or how it interacts with existing memories. The schema fills parameter-level gaps, but the description alone doesn't fully document the save workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has descriptive comments. The description only restates the mutual exclusion between `type` and `ps`, which is already in the schema. This is a baseline 3: schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little extra meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Save a memory... worth keeping across sessions.' It enumerates memory types (fact, decision, insight, project update), making the purpose concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like palinode_ingest or palinode_consolidate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite ('Requires exactly one of `type` or `ps=true`') and practical retry guidance ('On timeout... palinode_search a distinctive phrase before retrying'). This is clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't compare this tool against alternatives for general use, so not a full 5.

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