Project Tessera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an assignment/organization operation but doesn't clarify whether this creates new projects, modifies existing memory-project relationships, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that likely modifies data, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core action, the second provides usage context with helpful examples. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details about this likely-mutating operation. The presence of an output schema prevents this from being a lower score.

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 0% schema description coverage and only 2 parameters, the description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. It clarifies that 'project' represents a project space for organization and provides concrete examples ('tessera', 'frontend-app', 'api-design'), though it doesn't explain the 'memory_id' parameter or format requirements for either parameter.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('assign') and resource ('memory to a project space'), and provides concrete examples of project contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'memory_tags' or 'memory_categories' that might also organize memories, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies when to use this tool ('to organize memories by project context') and provides helpful examples, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is useful but incomplete.

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