memory.manual.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions one behavioral constraint (alternatives_considered requirement for ArchitecturalDecision) and the project derivation behavior. However, it does not disclose mutation effects, idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or what happens on conflicts—significant gaps for a creation 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 well-structured: purpose, usage guidelines, constraint, example, and optional behavior note. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. The example demonstrates the most typical parameters.

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?

Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core use case and required fields adequately but leaves many optional parameters unexplained. The agent can invoke the tool correctly for basic cases but lacks guidance on the full parameter set.

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 must add meaning beyond field names. It only explains category, title, summary, project, and alternatives_considered (5 out of 17 parameters). The other 12 parameters have no elaboration, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or format.

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 tool creates structured memory with explicit categories (DesignRule, BusinessRule, ArchitecturalDecision, DesignPattern). It distinguishes from sibling tools by listing alternatives (memory.upsert, memory.pr.create, etc.) and specifying when not to use each.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use for' sections with specific alternative tool names. The description also notes that ArchitecturalDecision requires alternatives_considered, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate vs. others.

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