Rememb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Modify' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. It lacks critical behavioral context 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, and while the schema documents parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the meaning of 'section' or 'tags' further). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('an existing memory entry'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'rememb_write' or 'rememb_delete', which would require more specific language about what modification entails versus creation or deletion.

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 like 'rememb_write' (for creation) or 'rememb_delete' (for removal). It mentions 'by ID' which implies a prerequisite of having an existing entry ID, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions compared to sibling tools.

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