mymemory_propose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses that entries go to a PENDING queue, that nothing activates without human approval, that there's a max of 20 per call, and that the server dedupes. This is strong behavioral transparency for a write tool with no annotation support.

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 a single cohesive paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then layers in constraints in logical order — durable-only scope, kind taxonomy, limits, dedupe behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 single-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context well: what to propose, what not to propose, the kinds, limits, and review flow. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify return confirmation behavior, but this is less critical given no output schema is expected.

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 for the undocumented 'entries' parameter. It does by explaining what kinds are available (directive, fact, preference, note with examples for directive) and explaining the dedupe and pending-queue behavior. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail the text length constraints or per-kind examples exhaustively.

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 what the tool does: propose new entries to the user's MyMemory vault with a specific verb ('propose') and resource ('MyMemory vault'). It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying this is about writing new durable knowledge, while get_context and search are likely read operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against the siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated within the sibling set.

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 when-to-use guidance ('when you learn something durable about them'), what NOT to propose ('never one-off task details or things already in the vault'), and the kinds taxonomy. It also explains the pending-queue approval model. This is exemplary usage guidance, clearly stating scope and exclusions.

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