memory_propose

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 that operation is a copy (originals preserved) and that the output is a pending review draft rather than an approved record. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether drafts can be re-proposed or deduplicated, and any failure behavior.

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 the key behavioral guarantee. The trailing environment parenthetical is compact but is tangential to invoking the tool, slightly diluting focus.

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, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers what is produced and where it lands. It does not need to describe return values, and remaining gaps (permissions, outbox location, idempotency) are minor for this scope.

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 100%, so both parameters (ids, localApprove) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies; 'review drafts' loosely complements localApprove but does not explain it.

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 precise verb and resource: copy personal memories into the project outbox as review drafts, and immediately clarifies the non-destructive nature ('originals stay put'). This distinguishes it from sibling mutations like memory_promote or memory_submit, which move/publish rather than copy.

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 never says when to choose this over memory_promote, memory_submit, or memory_supersede. The parenthetical only covers which surfaces expose the tool (MCP server, CLI, not the opencode plugin), which is availability, not usage guidance.

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