Save a memory

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is async, returns memory ID + status, and requires checking ragionex_memory_status for readiness. It also discloses the 'atomic save: ONE fact per call, no bundling' rule and the normalization to English. This goes beyond the basic 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 concise enough, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It then covers usage context, parameter constraints, behavioral notes, and return semantics in a structured flow. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but every sentence still adds useful guidance; it's not bloated.

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?

The description covers the core invocation aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, parameter constraints, the async behavior, and the need to poll with a sibling status tool. It references an external 'priority rule' for full write semantics, which is a slight gap but it explicitly names the key rule categories. Given the rich schema and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with extremely detailed descriptions for both parameters, including examples, slug patterns, and DO/AVOID rules. The tool description mostly re-summarizes this information, adding only a small extra detail that memories are 'stored in English'. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Save a durable fact, preference, or decision to ragionex-memory-mcp'. It clearly states the action and the destination, and further clarifies the persistence scope ('cross-client persistent memory'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by being the write-capture tool versus recall/list/view/update/delete.

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: 'Use for content that should persist across sessions and AI tools.' It also gives usage constraints like 'memories are stored in English' and 'atomic save: ONE fact per call', plus points to the priority rule for WHAT TO SAVE vs SKIP signals. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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