mnemosyne_todo_categories

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses destructive constraints, refusal behavior, the fact that the host will not pick a destination, why original lists are protected, and whether the app must be running. This is unusually thorough for a mutation tool.

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 information-dense without padding: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the sibling distinction, refusal rules, and environmental caveat. Every sentence earns its place, even though the middle sentences have some parenthetical complexity.

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 tool with one nested-array parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers what operations exist, when to choose this tool, what will be refused, protections for original lists, and runtime requirements. Nothing critical is left for the agent to guess.

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 meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the refusal conditions, the purpose of the operation types, and the distinction between workspace shape and work content, which helps an agent pick the right op values.

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 and resource: manage the To-do backlog's lists via create, rename/recolour, or remove. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mnemosyne_todo_update by the workspace-shape vs work-in-it principle, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 names the alternative tool (mnemosyne_todo_update) and gives a clear decision rule: use this tool when changing the shape of the workspace, not the work in it. It also pre-warns about refusals for non-empty lists and original lists, plus environment differences between dev installs and npm installs.

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