mmp_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses duplication stopping, force requirement, source rules, and field constraints. However, it does not detail success/error behavior or output format, though an output schema exists.

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?

Single paragraph that is front-loaded with the main action, logically organized, and free of fluff. Every sentence adds valuable information.

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?

Covers most aspects of the write operation, including field requirements, constraints, and duplicate handling. Missing details on output structure, but output schema exists. Slight gap on staleness of rev.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains the structure of entries (summary, tags, status, srcs, content, legend), rev requirement, file field, and force boolean, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 appends structured entries and distinguishes from raw syntax. It specifies the verb 'append' and resource 'entries', and contrasts with siblings (mmp_search, mmp_read, etc.) by focusing exclusively on write operations.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on entry fields, required sources for certain statuses, duplicate handling, and the need to use the latest rev from mmp_open. Implicitly tells when not to use (never raw syntax), but lacks explicit distinction from mmp_create or mmp_update.

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