mnemosyne_ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key traits: persistence ('Stored permanently') and indexing for retrieval. It also warns about confirmation via mnemosyne_vaults in the vault parameter. However, it does not mention side effects like idempotency, duplicate handling, or any return value. Since it's a write tool, permanence is the most critical trait, so it's reasonably covered, but gaps remain.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence defines the action and purpose, the second states permanence and indexing, the third gives timing guidance. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 a 3-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the outcome (permanent storage, indexing) and provides usage context. It does not describe the response format, but that's acceptable given the simplicity. It also hints at prerequisite checks (vault existence) via the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter guidance beyond schema—mostly repeating that content should be self-contained, which is already in the schema. It does add a hint about using spine_type for semantic boosting, but that's more about behavior than parameter semantics. The description does not materially improve on the schema's documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('Mnemosyne OS vault'), with concrete example content types (decision, architecture note, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mnemosyne_query (read) and mnemosyne_vaults (list vaults) by being the write operation for memories.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance ('at the END of a meaningful work session, or whenever you reach a decision...'), which is actionable. It also implies when not to use it (for trivial content) and implicitly points to alternative read tools via context, though it doesn't explicitly name them. Could name mnemosyne_query as the retrieval alternative for completeness.

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