memorybank_update_context

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool does not use AI and maintains a history of the last 10 sessions for tracking. This gives good insight into its behavior. However, it could be more explicit about whether updates overwrite or append, though the history mention suggests preservation.

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 concise and structured with a clear first sentence followed by a bullet list. It avoids unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded. However, the phrase 'No usa IA' is slightly redundant but still adds value. A more compact presentation might improve structure.

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 has 6 parameters (1 required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, lists what can be recorded, and mentions the history feature. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function, though it lacks details about error handling or return values (which would be expected given no output schema).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates categories of fields (session, changes, questions, etc.) but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. It does not clarify constraints or formatting beyond what is in the schema.

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 states the tool updates the active project context with current session information. It lists specific data that can be recorded, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memorybank_record_decision or memorybank_track_progress, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'No usa IA - actualización directa del documento' (Doesn't use AI - direct document update), which provides some guidance about when to use this tool (for direct updates). However, it does not specify when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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