Update Memory Bank (Roadmap & Append)

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds context about operation modes and validation/sync rules, but does not disclose return values, error handling, or side effects beyond what's implied by the examples.

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 well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence, usage guidelines, and examples. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its keep with no wasted words.

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 complexity (12 parameters, multiple modes) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers high-level purpose and key operations but does not document all parameters or compare with sibling tools like compress_memory_bank or plan, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 must compensate. It explains a few parameters via examples (operation, section, entry_text, date_str, operation_type, title, summary), but many parameters (position, entry_contains, change_description, skip_classification, section_heading_contains) are undocumented, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 tool adds/removes roadmap entries and appends memory-bank entries, with specific operation modes (roadmap_add, progress_append, log_append). Examples reinforce the purpose. However, not all operation types are explicitly listed, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT use' sections, guiding the agent to use this tool for targeted mutations and avoid free-form rewrites. This clearly distinguishes when to use this tool over alternatives.

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