Memory Bank MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the update is reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent uninformed about critical operational aspects.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase, '更新活动上下文文档', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns a high score for conciseness as every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'activity context document' is, how the update behaves, or what the tool returns. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context and expected outcomes.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for both parameters ('content' and 'projectId'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings, constraints, or usage examples, but the schema adequately covers the essentials.

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 '更新活动上下文文档' (Update activity context document) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'implement_update_context' in Chinese. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'activity context document' but lacks specificity about what this document represents or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_document' or 'implement_update_progress'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but doesn't distinguish meaningfully from siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that involve updates or documents (e.g., 'update_document', 'implement_update_progress', 'update_project'), but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately. This leaves the agent guessing based on tool names alone.

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