Manage Controlled Media

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job. It discloses that assets 'stay outside the Git worktree and enter normal memory only when attach is explicitly true,' that destructive operations are delegated to the CLI, and that MCP generation is disabled by default requiring MEMORIX_MCP_MEDIA_GENERATION=1 after operator review. This prevents misuse.

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 earning its place. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds storage behavior, and finally CLI alternatives and security prerequisites. No fluff or redundant 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 tool's complexity (17 params, 8 actions, no output schema), the description covers key behavioral and safety aspects well. However, it does not explicitly mention list, show, status, or cancel actions; 'inspection' implies some but not all. A slightly more explicit enumeration of the action types would make it 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?

Schema coverage is high (94%), so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by linking the 'attach' flag to memory semantics and explaining the generation gating related to the action parameters. It does not repeat schema details, which 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 identifies the tool's scope: 'Use the controlled local media library for an explicit import, attachment, inspection, or MiniMax generation request.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and action set, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like memorix_search or memorix_store by focusing on media management.

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 the tool ('explicit import, attachment, inspection, or MiniMax generation request') and when to use an alternative: 'Use the CLI for destructive removal, quota cleanup, and direct generation.' It also notes the env-var requirement for generation, guiding the agent on prerequisites.

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