memoryguard_invoke

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the confirmed=true and idempotency_key gating for mutating targets and the validation rule that unpublished native handlers are rejected. It still doesn't describe failure behavior or the blast radius of a destructive invocation.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the routing constraint and the mutation precondition front-loaded. The middle sentence about the GUI-name-sharing broker operation is the one piece that costs clarity without earning its space.

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 an open-world, destructive, generic dispatcher with a nested arguments object and no output schema, the description covers admission rules but omits how arguments are validated, what a successful or rejected invocation returns, and how errors surface. Adequate but with clear gaps for this level of complexity.

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 the schema already labels confirmed and idempotency_key as 'required for a mutating target', so the description largely restates structured data. It reinforces the conditional requirement but adds no format or syntax detail about the arguments payload.

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 action (invoke one operation) and constrains the resource to operations published by memoryguard_capabilities, which differentiates it from the direct siblings like memoryguard_memory_write. The clause about a 'headless broker operation that shares a GUI name' is idiosyncratic and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

It implies a workflow (look up the operation in the capability catalog first) and gives the precondition for mutating targets, but never says when to prefer this dispatcher over the concrete sibling tools such as memoryguard_memory_write or memoryguard_memory_delete. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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