update_project_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool appends, refreshes prompt memory, and updates the next_step field. It does not mention destructive effects, auth requirements, or return values, but given the simple mutation, the description is adequate.

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 highly concise: three sentences plus a bullet-style args list. The main purpose is front-loaded, each sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage timing, parameter meanings, and how it integrates with other tools. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description provides clear, human-readable definitions for all three parameters: project_id (slug), what_was_done (1-3 sentence summary), and next_steps (optional, updates next_step). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 appends a session summary to a project's history and refreshes prompt memory, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from general memory tools by focusing on project sessions and mentions integration with load_project_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 explicitly says 'Call this at the end of any work session on a project' and explains the history feeds into another function. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools like add_memory_entry.

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