amem_skill_save

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses accepted input shapes (full SKILL.md vs. description-plus-body) and the 'non-trivial' admission bar. It omits the behaviors that matter most for a write tool: what happens if `name` already exists (overwrite, error, or needs amem_supersede), whether the skill is immediately visible to amem_skill_view/list, and any size or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the trigger, then the input convention. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a four-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and input shape but leaves the collision/update semantics and post-save visibility unaddressed — both of which an agent needs in order to call this correctly, especially with amem_supersede sitting among the siblings.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that `content` may be either a complete SKILL.md or a markdown body to be wrapped, and that `description` plus body is an accepted alternative to a full document. That clarifies the relationship between the two nullable fields rather than restating them.

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?

Specific verb ('Save') plus a well-qualified resource ('a non-trivial multi-step procedure ... as a reusable skill'), which cleanly separates it from amem_skill_view and amem_skill_list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from amem_remember, the sibling an agent is most likely to confuse it with when deciding whether a piece of knowledge is a 'skill' or a 'memory'.

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?

Gives explicit, concrete trigger conditions: 'after solving something worth repeating — a workflow, a dead end you found the way past, or a correction the user gave you.' These are actionable and better than most. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when NOT to save (e.g. one-off facts, trivial steps) or to prefer amem_remember instead.

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