保存长期记忆

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a write, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: duplicate content is automatically merged, and sensitive information requires user consent — neither of which is expressed in the structured fields.

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 tight sentences: what to save, what not to save, and the merge behavior. No filler, and the positive guidance is front-loaded before the exclusions.

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 17-parameter mutation tool the description delivers a solid intent and safety story, and annotations plus a documented schema handle the rest. However, most non-required parameters receive no narrative explanation, so an agent gets little help on scoping or temporal fields.

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?

With 17 parameters and only ~53% schema coverage, the description carries some burden but offers no explicit parameter guidance. It does helpfully map its list of content types onto the kind enum values (preference, project, event, instruction), but says nothing about scope, namespace, supersedesId, idempotencyKey, or the time fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (save a long-term memory) and enumerates the content types that qualify (stable facts, preferences, project decisions, events, instructions). It clearly reads as the write side of the memory_* family, but it never names siblings like memory_update or memory_recall to disambiguate.

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?

Provides explicit negative guidance — do not save chit-chat, temporary state, passwords, tokens, or sensitive info without consent — which is strong when-to-use context. It lacks an explicit alternative path (e.g. when to use memory_update instead of writing a new memory), keeping it from a 5.

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