memoryguard_codegraph_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that source bodies are rejected, indicating metadata-only ingestion, but it is silent on side effects such as overwriting, appending, deleting existing storage, or requiring confirmation beyond the schema. This is thin for an update/import operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the key caveat is placed prominently. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the dense terminology slightly reduces clarity.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a single-sentence description is not enough. It omits the meaning and required behavior of 'confirmed', the effect of 'full_snapshot', and what happens to existing CodeGraph storage, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning to the 'export' parameter by calling it a metadata export and stating source bodies are rejected. The required 'confirmed' parameter and the meaningful 'full_snapshot' parameter are completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a concrete action: projecting a trusted MemoryGuard Graphify Core metadata export into scoped CodeGraph storage, and adds a distinguishing constraint: 'Source bodies are rejected.' Though 'Project' and 'Graphify Core' are somewhat jargon-heavy, the core action is clear and distinguishable from sibling codegraph query/status tools.

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 implies the intended use case: when an agent has a trusted Graphify Core metadata export and wants to load it into CodeGraph storage. It also signals that source bodies are not appropriate input. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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