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

Annotations already indicate write, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users, and retention duration (24 hours). This enriches the agent's understanding of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the primary function, providing usage guidance with examples, and explaining behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 the annotations and schema, the description provides a well-rounded understanding: what it saves, when to use it, how it behaves (scoping, persistence), and how it relates to sibling tools. It is complete enough for the agent to select and invoke correctly without additional context.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both key and value. The description adds use-case examples but does not fundamentally change parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 tool saves data for later reuse, using the specific verb 'Save' and resource 'data the agent will need to reuse later'. It distinguishes from siblings by framing the memory lifecycle with recall and forget, making its role unique.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use when you discover something worth carrying forward') and names alternatives for related operations ('Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete'). It also clarifies persistence contexts across sessions, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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