memoryguard_invoke

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

The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond the annotations: operations must be explicitly registered, native/GUI names are rejected, and mutating targets require confirmed=true and idempotency_key. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint flags without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information with no redundant phrasing. The core constraint is front-loaded, and the mutation safety requirements follow immediately.

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 definition is complete enough for a generic invocation tool: it names the discovery source, restricts accepted operation names, and explains the safety contract for mutations. It does not describe return values, but those are operation-dependent and no output schema is provided, so this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest extra meaning by tying operation to the capabilities catalog and specifying that confirmed must be true for mutating targets, which is slightly more precise than the schema's 'required for a mutating target.'

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 generic dispatcher for registered MCP operations discovered via memoryguard_capabilities, using the concrete verb 'Invoke' and specifying the resource type. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it never accepts native handler or GUI method names, so an agent can understand its unique role.

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 explicit context about when to invoke: only for operations found through memoryguard_capabilities, and only with the required confirmation/idempotency for mutations. It states a clear when-not ('Never accepts native handler or GUI method names'), though it does not explicitly enumerate the direct sibling tools as alternatives.

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