memory_save

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core behavior 'Save a memory' and lists content types, but it does not disclose side effects, whether it appends or replaces (despite the 'supersedes' parameter), or any requirements like prior initialization. This meets a minimal threshold but leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Save a memory about this project', and the second sentence adds useful enumeration of memory types without redundancy or filler.

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 save tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and content categories, while the schema handles parameter details. However, it omits mention of prerequisites (e.g., memory_init), return values, and behavior of the 'supersedes' parameter, leaving the description moderately but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It repeats the type enum values but does not clarify tags, content, or supersedes beyond what the schema already details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Save a memory about this project' and enumerates specific content types (decisions, patterns, architecture, gotchas, progress, context). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_delete by establishing a unique purpose.

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 implies usage for recording new information for future sessions, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like memory_recall or memory_search. It provides clear context ('about this project') but lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites, though the action verb 'save' strongly signals when it applies.

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