Fuzzy Memory MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether deletions are permanent, reversible, require specific permissions, affect downstream data, or have rate limits. The mention of 'associated relations' being deleted is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information (like permanence warnings), but it's appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial information about behavioral consequences (permanence, side effects), authorization needs, error handling, and what happens to 'associated relations' (e.g., cascade behavior). The context signals indicate moderate complexity that warrants more disclosure.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'entityNames' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationship to 'associated relations'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('multiple entities and their associated relations from the knowledge graph'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_observations' or 'delete_relations', which handle different resource types in the same system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_observations' or 'delete_relations', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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