Create an improved version of an existing code pattern by linking it to its parent. Provide the parent ID, improved code, and optional change description.
Create an improved version of an existing pattern (links to parent)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The improved code | |
| parentId | Yes | ID of the pattern to evolve | |
| description | No | What changed |
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, and it is thin. It conveys that a new pattern is created and linked to a parent, but says nothing about whether the parent is modified, what permissions or auth are needed, or what the returned value contains.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. No waste, though it is perhaps too terse to carry the required behavioral 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and relationship but omits side effects, permissions, and verification behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 already documents code, parentId, and description. The parenthetical '(links to parent)' adds marginal meaning to parentId, but nothing beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('improved version of an existing pattern'), and the parenthetical '(links to parent)' clarifies the relationship. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like memory.store, but never names them directly.
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 conditions distinguishing it from memory.store, memory.link, or memory.related, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer that 'evolve' means creating a derived version rather than storing or linking an existing one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.