mempalace_diary_write

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key details: diary text is stored as user data (not instructions), should not include an AAAK prefix, and new entries are indexed for scoped semantic search. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent useful expectations for side effects and data handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the format/style, storage classification, and indexing behavior. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the write action, content requirements, storage semantics, and indexing. It does not detail the output or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema and clear purpose makes this acceptable. The description gives enough context for correct invocation without being exhaustive.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'entry' is a 'Concise readable session note or durable observation'). The description's mention of 'summarizing a meaningful session' loosely reinforces the intended content of the entry, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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 tool's primary action: 'Write a concise readable plain-text diary entry summarizing a meaningful session.' The verb 'write' plus 'diary entry' precisely identifies the operation, and the mention of 'meaningful session' adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like diary_read and diary_search, which are retrieval-focused.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (summarizing a meaningful session) and provides a specific instruction not to add an AAAK prefix unless requested. It omits explicit comparisons to alternative tools, but the distinction between writing and reading/searching is straightforward given the sibling list. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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