memo

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

The description explicitly flags 'pop' as 'read + delete latest (destructive)' and marks 'delete' as destructive, which discloses important side effects. It also lists all actions, making the tool's behavior predictable. It does not mention errors, permissions, or idempotency, but the destructive labeling is a positive contribution given the absence of annotations.

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 compact and information-dense, using a clear 'action: parameters' format. It front-loads the tool's purpose and provides a complete action list in just a few lines, without redundant prose. Every line serves to clarify an action, making it highly efficient.

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 multi-action complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers all actions, required parameters, and destructive operations. It lacks return-type descriptions, but those are not explicitly required. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke actions correctly, though a brief note on expected outputs would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema already covers 86% of parameters with descriptions, including 'Required for' annotations for text, uuid, index, limit, and visibility. The description essentially restates this information in the action list, adding little new meaning beyond the schema. It does clarify that 'group' defaults to 'inbox', which is also present in the schema. Overall, the description does not significantly augment the schema's parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as managing memos, enumerating all 10 actions (add, list, get, get_nth, latest, oldest, pop, delete, edit, stats) with required parameters. While 'Save a memo or manage existing ones' is a bit generic, the action list clarifies the full scope and distinguishes the multiple operations available.

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?

Each action's required and optional parameters are listed, which serves as operational guidance for how to use the tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context for typical use cases. Given there are no siblings, the lack of comparison is not a major flaw, but a sentence on recommended usage would have been helpful.

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