memory_make_portable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description only says 'move' without explaining whether it copies or deletes the original, what 'project DB' refers to, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating 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 a single short sentence, but it lacks necessary detail. While front-loaded, it is too terse to be useful. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one omits critical information.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no explanation of return values (though output schema exists), the description is completely inadequate. It does not describe behavior, prerequisites, or consequences, leaving the agent unable to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description does not explain the parameters 'project' and 'project_path'. The optional 'project' parameter is not described at all, and 'project_path' is not clarified. The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: moving the project's DB into the project directory for git sharing. It specifies the verb 'move', the resource 'project DB', and the purpose, distinguishing it from other memory tools like memory_sync or memory_export.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_sync or memory_export. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.

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