mnemosyne_position_update

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the output is 'stored as a DECISION memory in the vault.' This tells the agent the write is persistent and goes to a specific memory category. The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations, and adds value without needing to repeat 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?

The description is two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately following. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines purpose and content, the second gives the usage moment and storage semantics. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the what, when, and where-it-stored aspects. It does not explicitly state whether the position is overwritten or appended, but the tool name 'position_update' and required resonance_id make the update semantics reasonably clear. The description is adequate for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive schema comment. The tool description adds a light mapping by mentioning 'phase, current state, next steps' which maps to phase and position, but it does not materially expand on the schema's existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Record') and the resource ('a resonance') and exactly what is recorded: phase, current state, next steps. It also distinguishes this position-saving action from siblings like mnemosyne_position_get or memory_ingest by framing it as a session-end bookmark, not a fetch or generic memory write.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call the tool ('Call it at the end of a session'), which provides clear context. It does not name specific alternatives or when not to use it, but the instruction is unambiguous enough for an agent to know the intended trigger.

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