task_memo_add

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

The description mentions the 'supersedes' parameter behavior (old memo marked invalid) which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on the task, required permissions, rate limits, or output details. Since no annotations exist, the burden is partially met but incomplete.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is action-oriented and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is largely complete for a simple 'add' operation. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools like memory_add or decision_log, which would improve completeness.

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?

All five parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds little extra meaning beyond the overarching purpose. The description's mention of use cases aligns with the memo_type parameter but does not deepen understanding of individual parameters.

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 verb 'Add' and resource 'memo record to a task', and lists specific use cases (tracking progress, recording decisions, marking issues). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_add (general memory) or decision_log (logging decisions).

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 contexts for using the tool (progress tracking, decision recording, issue marking), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No exclusions or when-not guidance is given.

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