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. '更新项目信息' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 just four Chinese characters ('更新项目信息'), which efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it suffers from under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 (updates project information) with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'project information' encompasses, how updates affect existing data, what values are returned, or how it differs from other update tools. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking.

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 doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% description coverage (all three parameters are documented in Chinese). Since schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without additional param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema completeness.

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 '更新项目信息' (Update project information) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_project' in Chinese. While it indicates the verb (update) and resource (project information), it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_document' or 'update_rule'.

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 perform updates (e.g., update_document, update_rule, creative_update_design), but the description doesn't indicate this is specifically for updating project metadata versus other entities. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.

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