Read or update the artist's standing style memory

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

The description far exceeds the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). It details mode-specific behaviors ('show' returns compact context string, 'read' returns full note, 'update' field-wise merges with lists union+dedup and scalars overwrite, bumps updated date). It also states the side-effect boundary ('no TouchDesigner side effects') and environment requirement, giving the agent complete operational expectations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It opens with the core action and resource, then succinctly packs mode behaviors, merge semantics, side-effect scope, and a prerequisite. Every clause adds value; it is a model of efficient technical writing.

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 no output schema, the description covers most needed context: return formats for show/read, merge behavior for update, side effects, and prerequisites. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what 'update' returns (e.g., the updated note) and no error-handling detail beyond the required env var, but this is a small omission in an otherwise thorough description.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds substantial semantic enrichment. It explains the meaning of each mode in practical terms and the merge strategy for the patch (lists union+dedup, scalars overwrite), which is not present in the schema descriptions. It also clarifies that patch is ignored for show/read, and that TDMCP_VAULT_PATH is required.

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 two specific verbs ('READ or UPDATE') and the exact resource ('Memory/style.md note in the configured Obsidian vault'), plus its scope ('artist's standing preferences across sessions'). This distinctively separates it from sibling vault and TouchDesigner tools.

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 conveys when to use the tool: for accessing or modifying long-lived style memory, not for ephemeral operations. It notes 'Touches the vault only — no TouchDesigner side effects' and the prerequisite 'Requires TDMCP_VAULT_PATH'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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