mcp-memento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens during updates (e.g., whether fields are replaced or merged, if changes are reversible, permission requirements, or error conditions). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information ('Update an existing memento').

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 6 parameters, 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, parameter meanings, return values, or error handling. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context to be 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 description coverage is only 17% (only 'memory_id' has a description), leaving 5 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't explain what 'title', 'content', 'summary', 'tags', or 'importance' represent or how they affect the update.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('an existing memento'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_memento' and 'delete_memento' by specifying it's for existing items, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar update operations like 'adjust_memento_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing memento ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'adjust_memento_confidence' or 'boost_memento_confidence' that might also modify mementos. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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