memory_propose

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it clarifies that this is a copy (originals remain) rather than a move, and discloses surface availability (MCP server and CLI, not the opencode native plugin). It does not describe the resulting draft state in detail, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core action, then the usage rule, then the alternative routing, all in three compact sentences. The trailing parenthetical on server/CLI availability is useful but slightly tangential; nothing is redundant.

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 non-destructive write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, safety semantics, lifecycle position, and environment availability. Minor gaps remain about what a draft looks like and where the outbox lives, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, including a description for localApprove, so the schema carries both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides (the word 'copy' loosely implies ids), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Copy personal memories into the project outbox as review drafts,' plus the clarifying clause that originals stay put. It explicitly distinguishes itself from memory_submit (moves drafts into the repo) and memory_promote (advances drafts already there), so an agent can route between the three without opening schemas.

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?

States the selecting condition explicitly ('Use this when personal knowledge should enter a project's review flow') and names the two adjacent alternatives with their distinct roles. This is a complete when/when-not map for the promote/submit/propose cluster.

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