amem_task_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the default status (backlog) and that tasks are persisted on a project Kanban, but says nothing about return value, deduplication, permissions, or what anchors/workspace do.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and placement, then the usage condition, then the alternative. No filler.

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 simple create tool this covers purpose and routing well, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% parameter coverage, it leaves an agent guessing about anchors, workspace, and what a successful call returns. Minimum viable, not complete.

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 only 40%: body and status are described in the schema, while title, anchors, and workspace are undocumented everywhere. The description adds one useful default (status defaults to backlog) but does not compensate for the undocumented anchors and workspace parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a deferred agent task on the project Kanban') plus the default placement ('backlog'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling amem_remember by naming where durable facts belong.

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?

Gives a use condition ('work that should not get lost in chat') and names the alternative routing ('Durable facts still go through amem_remember'). An agent can decide between the two without opening either schema.

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