Memory Bank MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '删除项目' only indicates a destructive action but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just two characters, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information about a destructive operation. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't earn its place by being informative enough.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails, what gets removed, whether there are confirmation steps, what the response looks like, or error conditions. Given the high-stakes nature of deletion operations, this represents a critical information gap.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as '项目ID' (project ID). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one well-documented parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately high. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 '删除项目' (delete project) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name in Chinese without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what type of project, what system it operates on, or how it differs from related tools like 'archive_export_project' or 'update_project'. While it does contain a verb+resource, it lacks the specificity needed for proper differentiation.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing project ID), when deletion is appropriate versus archiving (given sibling tools like 'archive_export_project'), or any constraints. This leaves the agent guessing about proper context.

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