memory_message

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

Despite annotations already flagging readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: adapter auth requirement, 24 h body retention with audit retention/redaction, rate limit 'urgent (6/h)', and a permission constraint ('Done: only maintainer/maintainer's delegate/clearer urgent'). These are meaningful disclosures beyond the annotations, though the telegraphic style makes some of them hard to parse.

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 a dense, telegraphic wall of fragments rather than front-loaded prose; the first line leads with 'Adapter auth required' instead of the tool's purpose. While few words are outright filler, the structure actively impedes comprehension and fails to front-load the most decision-relevant information.

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 an 11-parameter, 4-action tool with 0% schema description coverage and a separate output schema, the description covers auth, action behaviors, retention windows, cursor rules, and wake/ring semantics fairly completely. The main shortfall is that the peer/clears/urgent parameters are not clearly disambiguated across actions.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does compensate for many: 'to' format ('8+ hex prefix or project:<name>/all'), 'text <=8192 UTF-8 bytes', 'unique request_id, retry unchanged', cursor semantics for 'after', 'limit <=50', and 'message_id(s), comma-separated'. But several parameters (peer, clears, urgent) appear only as ambiguous fragments with no clear tie to an action, leaving real gaps.

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 never states the tool's purpose in a clean verb+resource sentence; it opens with 'Adapter auth required' and dives straight into per-action detail. The send/receive/ack/history actions do convey that this is a peer-messaging tool, but an agent must infer the overall purpose rather than read it, and there is no differentiation from siblings like memory_agents or memory_search.

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?

Action-specific usage is implied through fragments ('omit: replay unacked', 'Read-only', 'Ack message_id(s): read, not done'), which give some sense of when each action applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no routing against alternative sibling tools, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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