Prism MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behaviors: 'overwrites the current handoff state' (destructive to current), 'version number moves forward' (versioning semantics), and 'no data is lost' (safety). Git revert analogy adds implementation context.

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?

Three efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with action ('Restores'), followed by mechanism/safety details, and ends with clear prerequisite. 'Time travel!' hook is appropriate given the function.

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?

Appropriately complete for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema. Explains state mutation, versioning behavior, and prerequisites. Lacks only edge case handling (e.g., conflicts, permissions) to achieve 5.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions target_version in workflow context ('Call memory_history first to find the correct target_version'), but this largely restates the schema's '(get this from memory_history)' rather than adding new semantic detail.

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?

Specific verb 'Restores' with clear resource 'project's memory' and scope 'to a specific past version'. Distinguishes from sibling memory_history by implying restoration vs. viewing history. Git analogy clarifies the version control concept.

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?

Explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Call memory_history first to find the correct target_version' establishes sequencing. Missing explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to alternatives like session_forget_memory, but the prerequisite provides strong usage context.

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