memory_draft_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two key constraints: source is always 'pipeline' and exp_status is always 'draft', which are important for understanding the tool's behavior. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like side effects, return format, or whether this is a write operation (implied by 'save'). The transparency is partial.

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 extremely concise – two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the critical usage restriction ('Pipeline-only') and then states the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks any guidance on parameter semantics, expected input formats, return values, or error conditions. The output schema exists but isn't visible in the description. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 6 parameters (title, content, tags, project, group_key, conversation_id). It does not explain what content or title mean, how tags or project should be formatted, or any defaults beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 states a clear action: 'save a draft memory' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from siblings by noting it is pipeline-only and that source and exp_status are fixed. This differentiates it from memory_save and memory_draft_publish, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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?

The opening phrase 'Pipeline-only' explicitly restricts usage to pipeline contexts, telling an agent when NOT to use this tool. It implies the agent should prefer memory_save for general saves, but it doesn't name that sibling or state when to use the alternative. Still, the pipeline-only constraint is a clear usage boundary.

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