memory_save

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses persistence nature and return fields, but lacks mention of deduplication, overwrite behavior, or rate limits. The advice to use memory_get for full record is helpful.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and structured into clear sections. Every sentence adds value without repetition. The bullet lists are 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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and references sibling tools. It could elaborate on interactions with memory_update or memory_delete for completeness, but the current coverage is sufficient for most agents.

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 75%, so the description compensates with extra context like 'Be concrete and self-contained' for content and detailed interpretation of type enum values. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Persist a long-term memory for the current user,' which clearly states the action and target resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_get by instructing to use that tool for the full record. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' bullet points provide concrete scenarios, including when to store preferences, facts, etc., and when to avoid ephemeral chat or secrets. The guidance on refusing sensitive secrets adds valuable safety advice.

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