mnemosyne_agenda_add

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

No annotations are present, and the description takes responsibility for disclosing important behavior: the write is routed through the widget's own store and is immediately what the human sees; the dev-install headless daemon behavior versus npm requiring the app running is stated. This goes beyond a simple 'creates'; only missing error/reversibility details.

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?

All 4 sentences are useful and information-dense, covering purpose, context, deployment behavior, and sibling alternatives. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but each clause earns its place, so only minor redundancy.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key operational context (widget store, dev vs npm daemon, sibling routes). It omits return/error shape, but the schema fully documents the input side and this is a frequent write tool; enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the lone array of events, already including formats and nuances like ISO 8601 and 'do not set Z unless UTC'. The description adds generic context ('appointments or deadlines') but no additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, hitting the baseline 3.

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 verb and resource: 'Put appointments or deadlines into the human's calendar (the Agenda widget on their canvas).' Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming mnemosyne_agenda_list, update, and remove for other operations, so there is no ambiguity with the todo tools or agenda_remove.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use it when a conversation names a specific date/time to remember' and gives examples. It also points to the exact sibling tools for reading/updating/removing, covering when not to use this tool. No inference needed.

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