memory.pr.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the creation action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or constraints (e.g., what happens if the PR already exists). The example usage helps, but transparency is average 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 concise: a one-sentence purpose, a usage guideline, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (18 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the core use case and a few parameters but fails to explain most parameters, return values, or side effects. The example is helpful but insufficient for a tool with such a large 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 compensate. It mentions only a few parameters in the example (project, repo, pr_number, title, summary, changed_files, pr_url, work_item_url) and notes that two are required. The remaining 8 optional parameters (e.g., areas, branch, status, authors, merged_at, objective, event_date, work_item_id, work_item_summary, work_item_provider) are entirely undocumented, leaving their semantics unclear.

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's purpose: 'Cria memória a partir de um Pull Request (PR + work item linkados).' It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by listing when NOT to use it (memory.upsert, memory.episode.create), making the purpose 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 usage guidance: 'Use when: persistir o que um PR mudou e por quê; ligar PR a work item. Do NOT use for: regra/decisão genérica (memory.upsert); evento sem PR (memory.episode.create).' It also states that pr_url and work_item_url are required, offering clear context for selection.

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