mcp-memento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a manual adjustment tool (not automatic), allows overriding decay, and includes confidence ranges with semantic meaning. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if this affects other systems) or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, use cases, examples, confidence ranges), each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or verbose language.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens after adjustment (e.g., if it triggers notifications) or error cases, but it covers most essential aspects well.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples with realistic parameter values and explaining the semantic meaning of confidence ranges (0.9-1.0 = 'High confidence', etc.), which helps the agent understand appropriate values.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('manually adjust confidence of a relationship') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'apply_memento_confidence_decay' (automatic) and 'boost_memento_confidence' (likely one-directional). It explicitly defines the action on a specific resource type (relationship confidence).

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 'Use for' scenarios with three specific cases (correcting scores, setting custom confidence, overriding decay), giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like automatic decay tools by mentioning 'overriding automatic decay.'

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