memory_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose several important behaviors: user confirmation is required, same-topic/environment/branch changes become proposals, and secrets must not be uploaded. However, it does not cover side effects, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior, leaving some uncertainty 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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs essential constraints without filler. Every clause contributes practical meaning, making it efficient and well structured.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably. It omits meaning for required fields like directory and source, does not explain the proposal lifecycle in depth, and provides no information about return values or failure modes.

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%, and the description must compensate for nine parameters. It adds meaningful guidance for environment, branch, and source_version by saying they should be filled only when verified and left blank when unknown. However, required fields like directory and source are not explained, and parameters such as kind, agent, and content receive no definition or guidance.

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 says the tool publishes a memory ('发布一条记忆') and adds an important condition—only after user confirmation. It also explains that similar changes become proposals in certain contexts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_retract, but the verb and resource are clear.

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 gives explicit usage constraints: publish only after user confirmation, reuse existing topics by checking first, leave unknown fields blank, and do not guess or upload secrets. It provides practical guidance on how to fill fields, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool over this one.

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