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 and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It explains limits (character counts, tag limits), best practices (tagging acronyms), type constraints (what types to avoid), and return behavior ('Returns memory_id'). It doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but covers most operational aspects well for a creation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Required/Optional, USE FOR/DO NOT USE, LIMITS, TAGGING BEST PRACTICE, Types, Notes, EXAMPLES) and every sentence earns its place. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool with complex usage considerations. It could be slightly more concise in the type explanations, but overall very efficient.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, parameter semantics with examples, and references to related tools. The only minor gap is lack of output schema explanation, but 'Returns memory_id' provides the essential information needed for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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: explaining parameter constraints (max lengths, uniqueness requirements), providing tagging best practices with rationale, clarifying type usage with specific examples and restrictions, and giving concrete usage examples. However, it doesn't fully explain the 'context' parameter's structure or purpose.

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 verb+resource ('Store a new memento with context and metadata'), distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for creating new mementos (vs. update_memento, delete_memento, etc.), and explicitly lists required parameters. It goes beyond a tautology by explaining what a 'memento' represents in this context.

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 guidance with 'USE FOR: Long-term knowledge that should survive across ALL sessions' and 'DO NOT USE FOR: Temporary session state or project-specific context.' It also references sibling tools ('Use create_memento_relationship to link related memories') and distinguishes when to use specific types vs. alternatives (e.g., 'decision' is not a standalone type).

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