memory.change.propose

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly notes that the tool does not record an active memory, which is critical. However, it fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, preview lifetime, how to discard, or any error behavior. For a mutation-like tool, this is insufficient.

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 single short sentence that immediately conveys the action and key limitation. It is front-loaded and avoids filler. However, given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), the description could be slightly longer without losing conciseness.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings. The description covers only the basic purpose and one behavioral trait. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and sufficient behavioral details, leaving the agent underinformed 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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions. The tool description does not mention any of the 8 parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone. Parameters like source_locator and source_kind are ambiguous, and the description offers no help. This is a major deficit.

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 that the tool creates a server-side preview and does not record an active memory, which distinguishes it from other tools that commit changes. However, it could be more explicit about 'proposing a change to memory' to fully align with the tool name and sibling context.

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 implies the tool should be used when a preview of a change is needed before recording. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools (e.g., memory.upsert or memory.pr.create). The context from sibling names like memory.change.rollback adds some implicit guidance, but the description itself lacks direct comparisons.

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