memory_pr_status

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

The description states that apply=true 'performs the mapped transitions locally', i.e. it mutates local memory state, while the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true. That is a direct conflict: the tool does modify its environment when apply is set. The otherwise-excellent disclosure of mapping semantics and no-push behavior cannot overcome a flat contradiction with the structured hint.

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?

Front-loads the core read-and-map behavior, then the apply semantics, with no redundant sentences. The trailing parenthetical about which surfaces expose the tool is slightly extraneous but plausibly useful for routing.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and the need to explain a non-obvious state mapping, the description is largely sufficient: it covers the mapping rules, default vs apply mode, and the no-push constraint. It omits what the report format looks like and any GitHub auth/permission requirements, which leaves minor gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents apply. The description restates the same semantics ('Report by default; apply=true performs the mapped transitions locally (no push)') and only adds the useful 'no push' qualifier, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource: reads the current branch's GitHub PR and maps its review state onto in-repo memories, with explicit mapping rules (merged→published, approval→approved, changes-requested→suggestion). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_status or memory_submit, which deal with memory state rather than PR review state.

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?

Clearly splits behavior: report by default, apply=true to perform transitions, and notes no push occurs. It gives the condition that selects the mutating path but does not name a sibling or point to an alternative when the agent only wants raw PR data, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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