mcp-memento

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 adequately describes the core action (creating typed relationships between mementos) and mentions optional parameters like strength and confidence, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects such as whether this operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, error conditions, or how conflicts with existing relationships are handled.

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 perfectly structured and concise: it starts with the core purpose, provides common relationship types for context, gives clear examples, and lists optional parameters - all in minimal space with zero wasted sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding practical guidance.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. While it covers the core functionality and parameter usage well, it lacks information about what happens after creation (return values, success indicators), error handling, and system constraints. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what to expect upon success.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of relationship_type through examples of common types (SOLVES, CAUSES, etc.) and providing concrete usage examples that clarify parameter ordering and optional parameter usage. This goes well beyond what the schema provides about parameter types and constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Link') and resource ('two mementos with a typed relationship'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_memento_relationships_by_context' or 'get_related_mementos' which query rather than create relationships. The description explicitly focuses on creation rather than retrieval or modification.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by listing common relationship types (e.g., SOLVES, CAUSES) and giving concrete examples, which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_memento' for modifying existing relationships.

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