KnowledgeSmith MCP

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 states the action ('Delete') and mentions a return ('Success message dictionary'), but lacks critical details such as whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related data, or includes error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and followed by structured sections for args, returns, and an example. However, the inclusion of metadata tags (@REQ, @BP, @TASK) adds minor clutter without contributing to tool understanding, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the basic action and parameters but lacks crucial behavioral context like safety warnings or usage prerequisites, making it adequate but with clear gaps for informed tool selection.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'uuid' is the 'UUID of the episode to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive. The example provides usage context, but no additional format or validation details are given.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('an episode from the graph memory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_graph' or 'delete_entity_edge', which would require mentioning it targets episodes specifically versus other graph components.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used instead of 'clear_graph' for targeted deletions or 'delete_entity_edge' for different graph elements, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the episode UUID from 'get_episodes'.

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