Push Memory to Group Space

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description explains copy semantics: 'This creates a COPY — the original personal memory stays in your private space unchanged' and that only pushed content becomes visible to group members. It also discloses the return value with a new ID.

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?

The description is well-structured with intro, use case, args, and returns. However, the opening 'IMPORTANT' paragraph is generic ecosystem guidance that could be trimmed for conciseness.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, use cases, parameter discovery, copy semantics, and return value. The schema adds membership requirements. Everything needed is present.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema text and adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states 'Copy a personal memory into a group (team) space' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this sharing/copying action from sibling tools like flowmcp_list_spaces, flowmcp_store, flowmcp_recall, and flowmcp_forget.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when a user wants to share project context, architecture decisions, or technical knowledge with their team.' It directs users to flowmcp_list_spaces for finding target IDs, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like store or forget.

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