suggest_improvement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals that no token is required, that charon reviews every suggestion, and that a public verdict will appear at /suggestions. It does not explicitly state the immediate side effect of submitting or what happens on success, but it does disclose the main workflow.

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 two tight sentences, both information-dense. The first gives purpose and scope; the second covers access, review, and where the verdict gets posted. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple submission tool, the description provides a workable picture: what to do, who can do it, and what happens after. However, it omits clarification of the contact field, and because there is no output schema and no return-value note, the success response is unspecified.

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 only 25%, and the tool description gives no additional meaning for title, body, or contact. The token parameter is explained in the schema, but title/body semantics and the purpose of the optional contact field are left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest an improvement to Mnemosyne itself' and names the target scope (site, API, MCP server). It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like discuss_suggestion or list_suggestions, but the described purpose and scope are clear enough.

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?

Explicitly says 'Open to everyone — no token needed', which gives a clear access precondition. It does not mention when to choose a sibling tool, but it provides concrete context about who can use this and when.

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