memvid_put

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

Annotations cover basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'from a file or directory' and implies content addition, but doesn't disclose effects like whether existing content is overwritten, authentication needs, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Add content to a memory file') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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 tool has no output schema and annotations provide basic hints, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correct invocation in a complex sibling toolset.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'input' can be a file or directory, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 action ('Add content') and target resource ('memory file'), specifying it works 'from a file or directory'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_put_many' or 'memvid_create', which likely have overlapping functionality with memory files.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_put_many', 'memvid_create', 'memvid_update'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this specific tool.

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