memory_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses storage location (<config>/notes/*.md), human editability, search-index inclusion, and a credential refusal rule, but says nothing about what happens when the filename already exists (overwrite vs. error), whether deletion/replacement is possible, or what a successful call returns — critical for a write 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by location and constraints; nothing is padded. The final sentence 'Credentials are refused' is terse but earns its place as a hard constraint.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers location, searchability, human editing, and one content restriction. It still omits overwrite/conflict semantics and success behavior, which an agent needs before writing.

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% and the schema only supplies titles ('Filename', 'Markdown'). The description implies filename resolves inside <config>/notes/*.md and that content is Markdown, but it does not say whether an extension is required, whether subpaths are allowed, or whether the filename acts as an overwrite key.

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 ('Write a human-editable Markdown note') and gives the intended content type (project instructions, conventions). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling memory_write, so an agent cannot be certain which write tool to pick from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied through examples ('project instructions, conventions') and the note that content becomes searchable via memory_search, which hints at when to use it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as memory_write, leaving the choice between the two write paths to inference.

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