memory_alma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious side effect: neighbors are auto-boosted on access. Beyond that it says nothing about mutation semantics (delete reversibility, permission requirements, whether update overwrites unspecified fields), leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a write-capable 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the alias/identity and the core CRUD purpose, then the side effect, then the alternative-tool escape hatch. No filler.

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 4-parameter CRUD tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what it operates on, a key side effect, and one routing rule. It is nearly complete but omits return-shape expectations and per-action behavioral differences that an agent calling delete or update would benefit from.

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% and every parameter is documented inline (name, action enum, new_name, entity_type), so the description need not carry parameter detail. It adds only the loose mapping of entity types to the entities it manages, which is largely redundant with the entity_type schema description.

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?

States a specific verb set (CRUD) and resource (knowledge graph entities) and enumerates the entity types it operates on. It also declares itself an alias of cuba_alma and routes transient-data callers to cuba_cronica, so an agent can place it relative to siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (cuba_cronica) and the condition selecting it (transient info). That covers one important when-not case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer create vs update vs get, or when to use the alias rather than cuba_alma.

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