save_to_global_memory

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source. It discloses the storage path and return values, but does not clarify mutation behavior like overwrites or uniqueness enforcement. The contradiction about caller_agent_id being required vs optional reduces clarity.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and wastes no words. It includes a storage path which is extra but not harmful. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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 simplicity, the description covers basic purpose and returns. However, the caller_agent_id contradiction and lack of details on parameter constraints leave gaps. Output schema is implied but not detailed enough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It briefly explains key, content, tags, and caller_agent_id, but adds little beyond the schema. The description says caller_agent_id is required while the schema shows it as optional, causing confusion. No format or constraints for tags or content.

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 saves knowledge to global memory shared across projects, distinguishing it from local memory tools like save_to_memory. It uses specific verbs and resources, but could be more explicit about when to use global vs local.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using global memory over local memory.

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