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. '更新文档内容' implies a mutation/write operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update overwrites or merges content, what happens if the document doesn't exist, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 the description is extremely concise (just three Chinese characters), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase doesn't provide enough information to be helpful, and it's not front-loaded with the most critical information. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there's essentially no sentence at all.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent needs to understand what 'updating document content' actually means operationally - does it create documents, overwrite existing ones, append content, or something else? Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters (content, projectId, type) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides about these parameters. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '更新文档内容' (Update document content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_document' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of document or what 'content' refers to, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_rule' that also perform updates on different resources.

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 update various resources (e.g., 'update_project', 'update_rule', 'implement_update_context'), but the description offers no context about when this specific document update tool is appropriate versus those other update operations.

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