memory_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what to save and when, but never describes side effects, persistence, deduplication, idempotency, overwrite behavior, permissions, or consequences. The only behavioral hint is the verb 'save,' which does not disclose enough for an annotation-free tool.

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 dense and efficiently structured: a short purpose clause, then scenario-based guidance with clear title/problem/solution patterns, and a final explicit exclusion. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is 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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. The description provides rich contextual triggers and scope guidance, which is substantial for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no annotations. Yet the unexplained parameters and missing behavioral traits leave some gaps that an agent must infer, preventing a perfect score.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does heavily for title, problem, solution, and scope, mapping them to each scenario (e.g., 'title=error summary, problem=what failed, solution=what fixed it'). However, it leaves half the parameters (tags, content, project, group_key, experience_type) unexplained, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

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 specific action ('Save valuable knowledge') and resource, then elaborates through four concrete save scenarios, making the purpose unmistakable. However, it does not name or distinguish sibling tools like memory_archive_upsert or memory_draft_save, so it falls short of full 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 description provides explicit 'Call this when you:' triggers for four distinct situations (unexpected error, alternative selection, user correction, access info) and gives an explicit exclusion: 'For session archiving, use the /archive skill (not this tool).' This is exemplary when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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