mm_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it doesn't disclose what setup actually changes (files written, git repos initialized, config persisted) or whether it is reversible. Only fragmentary hints appear ('shared true uses project git, false keeps private'), which is parameter meaning rather than behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is short, but it is not front-loaded with purpose and reads as a fragmentary parenthetical rather than a coherent instruction. The clauses ('project (shared true uses project git, false keeps private)') are dense and hard to parse.

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?

Seven parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema is a high-complexity surface that this definition does not adequately cover. An agent would have to guess at path/remote semantics and at the tool's side effects.

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, and it partly does: it explains target (personal/project), mode (local/existing/clone), shared, and push. Three parameters (git, path, remote) get no explanation and the phrasing for the ones covered is ambiguous.

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 never states what the tool does — there is no verb+resource like 'configure memory/script storage'. It only paraphrases a couple of parameters ('personal (mode local/existing/clone) or project'), which restates the schema rather than naming the operation.

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?

'After asking which:' implies this runs after collecting user answers, which is a faint sequencing hint. But it never says when to call mm_setup versus mm_save/mm_run/mm_list, nor what prerequisites exist before invoking it.

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