Replace memory/goals.md with new markdown content to revise or reset the goals stored in your second brain.
Replace the contents of memory/goals.md with new content.
Args: new_content: Full new content for goals.md (markdown format)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive semantic ("Replace the contents" = overwrite, not append), which is meaningful for a mutation tool. However, it omits permissions required, whether the file is created if absent, and whether the prior content is recoverable.
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?
Front-loaded with the primary action and resource in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Efficient overall, though the docstring-style Args formatting is partly boilerplate that the schema already conveys.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, the description is adequate but thin – it should say what happens on overwrite (creation if missing, loss of prior content) to be fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning: the parameter is the FULL content (not a diff/patch), and the expected format is markdown. This is enough to call the tool correctly, though it does not describe edge cases like empty input.
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 names a specific verb ("Replace") and a precise resource ("the contents of memory/goals.md"), so the agent knows exactly what file is affected. It does not differentiate from siblings, but no sibling touches goals.md, so the lack of differentiation is not a real gap.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. The 'Replace' wording hints at a full-overwrite scenario versus tools like append_to_note, but the description never states the condition that selects this tool or warns against using it for partial edits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.