mind_library

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 usefully flags delete as destructive, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what 'counts' in list represents, leaving mutation semantics thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource name, then a compact per-action breakdown that reads cleanly. Dense but no sentence is wasted; slightly telegram-style but appropriate for a dispatcher.

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 three-action dispatcher with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what each action does and its relationship to siblings. Only the destructive/permission nuance for delete is under-explained.

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%, with id/name/library each documenting which action requires them, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only high-level action-to-parameter flavor beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States the resource ('library namespaces') and enumerates each action with its specific effect: create a named library, list all with counts, delete a memory by id. It explicitly names the siblings it supercedes (mind_create / mind_list / mind_delete), so an agent can place it precisely without opening schemas.

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 action breakdown and the 'Replaces mind_create / mind_list / mind_delete' note tell the agent when to reach for this tool over the older single-purpose siblings. No explicit 'when-not' or prerequisite guidance, but the routing context is clear.

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