mnemosyne_position_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation persists data ('persisted as a DECISION chronicle') and describes what is recorded, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether the update overwrites or appends. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, followed by usage timing and persistence detail. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool is relatively simple with no output schema. The description covers the purpose, when to use, and what gets persisted. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (if anything) or any error scenarios, which would be useful for an agent. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some context by indicating what to record (phase, current state, next steps), but this largely reinforces the schema descriptions rather than adding substantial new meaning. Baseline of 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 primary action: 'Update the current position of a Resonance' which is a specific verb and resource. It also explains the purpose of calling it at the end of a session. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g., position_get), though the action is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use: 'Call this at the end of a session to record where you left off'. It gives a clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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