brain-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, destructive, idempotent, or open-world, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies the tool moves files (implied mutation), mentions promotion as a common use case, and notes it returns confirmation or errors. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the operation's intent and output behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, and then structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's moderate complexity (moving files), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema existing (though not shown), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool effectively.

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 carries full burden. It adds meaning by explaining that params include 'Source path and destination folder', with examples in the Args section ('e.g., Notes/my-note.md' and 'e.g., Projects'). This clarifies the purpose of the single 'params' object beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 explicitly states the action ('Move a note from one folder to another') and the resource ('note'), with a specific example ('promote from inbox'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like brain_create_note or brain_update_note by focusing on relocation rather than creation or content modification.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Commonly used to promote notes from Notes/ to their final location in a domain folder'), including a typical workflow example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when to use brain_update_note vs. move for content changes).

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