memory_save_fast

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

Discloses several behavioral traits beyond annotations: it skips quality checks, does not use LLM, and is non-blocking. It does not mention potential downsides of skipping quality, but given minimal annotations, this is fairly transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the core function, the second gives usage guidance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complexity of 10 parameters, the description is sparse. It does not explain required fields or optional parameters, though it may be acceptable as a variant reference. It omits any detail about the output or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 adds no information about the parameters. Schema coverage is low (20%) with only agent_id and parent_agent_id described, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the other parameters. It relies entirely on reference to memory_save.

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's purpose: it saves memory like memory_save but uses a faster path, bypassing quality checks. It distinguishes itself from memory_save by specifying the variant's key difference.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use when you want to bypass the v10 quality gate without flipping the env flag.' This provides clear guidance relative to the alternative (memory_save).

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