save_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the memory is stored in 'short-term storage' with 'temporal decay,' may be 'forgotten if not used regularly,' and 'frequently accessed memories may be promoted to long-term storage automatically.' This provides important context about persistence, lifecycle, and automatic promotion that isn't obvious from the tool name alone.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences followed by a structured parameter list. The first sentence states the core purpose, the next two explain behavioral context, and the Args section efficiently documents parameters. There's minimal waste, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 (6 parameters, behavioral nuances) and the absence of annotations, the description does a reasonably complete job. It explains the tool's purpose, behavioral characteristics (decay, promotion), and documents all parameters. Since there's an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools.

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 description includes an 'Args:' section that lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'Tags for categorization') and don't provide detailed semantics like format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates somewhat but not fully.

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 action ('Save a new memory') and resource ('to short-term storage'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'promote_memory' or 'touch_memory' by focusing on initial creation rather than manipulation of existing memories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_relation' which might also create new data.

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 implies usage context through phrases like 'temporal decay applied' and 'forgotten if not used regularly,' suggesting this is for transient storage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'promote_memory' (for long-term storage) or 'cluster_memories' (for grouping). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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