maimemo_add_words

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description usefully adds a beta instability warning and the auto-sync prerequisite, but it never explains what the 'destructive' aspect actually means or how this affects existing study data/records.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the beta caveat. Minimal waste, though the HTML-wrapped beta notice is slightly heavier than necessary for a title-less tool.

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?

With no output schema, a fully described input schema, and annotations carrying the safety hints, the description covers the basics plus the beta warning. It stops short of explaining the effect on the user's study list/progress, which matters for a mutation tool flagged destructive.

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 both the nested words array (max 1000, ID sourced via the query API) and advance/confirm are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource ('添加单词' / add words), which an agent can map to a write operation on vocabulary. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like maimemo_list_vocabulary, maimemo_get_vocabulary, or maimemo_advance_study, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only contextual constraint given is a prerequisite ('需要在 App 中开启自动同步'), not when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, and there is no statement about when adding words is appropriate versus other vocabulary operations.

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