Prism MCP

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden admirably. Discloses three specific algorithmic strategies (Temporal Chaining, Keyword Overlap, Provenance), implementation safety ('INSERT OR IGNORE'), and idempotency ('safe to re-run multiple times').

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?

Excellent structure with clear sections: purpose statement, enumerated strategies, safety note, and usage guidelines. Markdown formatting aids scannability. Zero redundant content; every sentence provides unique operational context.

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 complex graph-building maintenance tool with no output schema, description provides complete operational context: algorithms explained, safety guarantees stated, upgrade scenario documented, and scope limitations clarified.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'project' parameter. Description contextualizes the parameter ('for all existing entries in a project') but does not need to add syntax details given complete schema documentation. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Retroactively create') + resource ('graph edges/memory links') + scope ('all existing entries in a project'). Explicitly contrasts with automatic linking of 'new entries' to distinguish from session_save_experience and siblings.

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 '**When to use:**' section identifies specific trigger ('after upgrading to v6.0'). Clear negative guidance ('no manual action needed') for new entries, establishing when NOT to use it versus normal save operations.

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