SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the idempotent 'create-if-missing' behavior and return of existing edges, which is valuable. However, it lacks critical details: permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what 'return the existing edge' entails (e.g., format, errors). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and conditional behavior, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a mutation tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the idempotent behavior but misses parameter explanations and broader context like error handling or side effects. The output schema mitigates some gaps in return values.

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 'relationship' but doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters (e.g., what 'from_entity' and 'to_entity' represent, valid 'relationship_type' values, or purpose of 'relationship_id'). This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 ('Create a relationship if missing') and resource ('relationship'), with a specific behavior ('otherwise return the existing edge'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_relationship' by implying idempotent behavior, though not explicitly named.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_relationship' or 'list_relationships'. The description implies it's for ensuring a relationship exists, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases with siblings.

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