memvid_nudge

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds minimal context by mentioning 'background processing'. It doesn't elaborate on what 'trigger' implies (e.g., async behavior, side effects, or rate limits), so it provides some value beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with just two phrases ('Nudge operations - trigger background processing'), front-loaded and without any wasted words. Every part contributes to the purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity implied by 'background processing' and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the nudge does, what 'processing' entails, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'file' parameter as a path to a .mv2 memory file. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool performs 'nudge operations' to 'trigger background processing', which gives a vague purpose but lacks specificity about what exactly is being processed or what 'nudge' entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'memvid_process_queue' or 'memvid_enrich', making it unclear how this differs from other processing tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'memvid_process_queue' and 'memvid_enrich' that might involve processing, the description offers no context on when this specific 'nudge' operation is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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