Approve a pending memory candidate by previewing changes first, then apply to an existing Markdown file only when an explicit SHA-256 hash matches.
Preview approval by default; apply only to an existing Markdown target with an explicit matching SHA-256.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | No | ||
| target_path | No | ||
| candidate_id | Yes | ||
| review_reason | No | ||
| expected_target_hash | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait that approval is non-mutating by default and only applies under strict conditions (existing target, matching hash). However it omits what preview returns, permission/auth requirements, and the effect of review_reason, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, putting the safe default first and the apply condition second. Every clause earns its place.
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 5-parameter conditional-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description captures the critical safety gate but is thin: it does not explain the preview response, the role of review_reason, or the identity semantics of candidate_id. It is adequate but incomplete.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds semantics for apply ('apply'), target_path ('Markdown target'), and expected_target_hash ('explicit matching SHA-256'), but says nothing about candidate_id or review_reason, leaving two parameters undocumented.
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 centers on the approval action and its default mode ('Preview approval by default'), which combined with the tool name makes the verb+resource clear, and it implicitly contrasts with a non-previewing sibling like memory_candidate_reject. It never states the object explicitly ('a memory candidate'), so an agent leans on the name for full purpose.
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?
It gives a concrete when-to-use rule: preview by default, and apply only 'to an existing Markdown target with an explicit matching SHA-256'. That defines both the default path and the gate for the mutating path. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., memory_candidate_reject) for adjacent decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.