claude-session-continuity-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the mutation behavior ('Create a directed edge'), side effects ('inserts or replaces a row in memory_relations (upsert on sourceId+targetId+relation)'), and constraint ('Supports 7 relation types'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, or rate limits, which would be helpful 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 efficiently structured in three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important constraints, and the third provides crucial sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 does well by explaining the operation, side effects, and sibling differentiation. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, error formats) or potential error conditions, which would be important for a tool that modifies data.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions '7 relation types' which is covered by the enum, and 'upsert on sourceId+targetId+relation' which provides some context but not detailed parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a directed edge') and resource ('between two memories in the knowledge graph'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (memory_related and graph_explore). It provides the exact scope with 'Supports 7 relation types for structured knowledge organization'.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Create a directed edge between two memories') and when to use alternatives ('Use memory_related to discover existing connections; use graph_explore to traverse the graph from a starting node'). This gives clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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