marm_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe side effects: updating scratch entries, activating instructions, clearing the active list, and promoting to permanent docs. But it omits important behaviors like whether 'clear' also deletes scratch entries, whether 'save' removes the source entry, and session persistence semantics. This is partial transparency, not full.

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 exceptionally well-structured: a single-line summary followed by a bulleted list of actions, each one sentence. There is no fluff, and the format makes the multi-action tool easy to scan and understand 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, multiple actions, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only explains a subset of actions and three of the seven parameters. It lacks the underlying conceptual model (scratch vs. active vs. permanent) and never mentions return values or session-specific behaviors. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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?

The description adds meaning for action, name, data, and names by specifying their required status per action (e.g., 'name + data required' for add). However, it completely ignores project, platform, and session_name, which are present in the schema with zero documentation. Since schema coverage is 0%, the incomplete parameter guidance creates a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool as a unified notebook manager with six explicit verbs (add, use, show, status, clear, save). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like marm_log_entry or marm_smart_recall by framing it as a scratch/active entry management tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Per-action instructions imply when to use each subcommand (e.g., 'add' for saving scratch entries, 'use' for activating instructions), and the 'notebook' context implies a general use case. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use this tool, and there is no high-level guidance on sibling tool selection.

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