mnemosyne_agenda_add

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral context: writes are routed through the widget's own store, so what is filed is what the user sees, and it explains the daemon difference between dev installs and npm installs. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful operational detail, though it omits error/return behavior.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage trigger, then the operational caveat, then sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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?

Given that the schema richly documents parameters and the description covers purpose, usage, storage behavior, runtime requirements, and alternatives, the tool is almost fully specified. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not state what a successful call returns or how failures surface.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the ISO 8601 timezone caveat and the meaning of each optional field. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond framing appointments and deadlines, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Put appointments or deadlines') and the resource ('the user's calendar, the Agenda widget on their canvas'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read/update/remove tools by explicitly directing readers to mnemosyne_agenda_list, mnemosyne_agenda_update, and mnemosyne_agenda_remove for those 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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when a conversation names a date and time to remember', with concrete examples like meetings, deadlines, and 'add this to my calendar'. It also names alternatives for reading, changing, and removing appointments, giving clear routing guidance.

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