Three well-named tools with clear, action-oriented names (stickies_write, stickies_read, stickies_dismiss). All tools have descriptions (50-100 chars, within baseline). Input schemas are present with proper types and enums. However, output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict what fields are returned. Parameter descriptions are present but minimal (10-30 chars), lacking guidance on format, constraints, or dependencies. Error handling is not visible in the provided code. Tool composition is sound (each does one thing), but the lack of output documentation and sparse parameter guidance limits production readiness.

• Document output schemas for all three tools. Example for stickies_read: 'Returns array of {id: string, content: string, category: enum, importance: enum, tags: string[], project_path: string|null, created_at: ISO8601, dismissed: boolean, ttl_remaining_days: number}.'
• Expand parameter descriptions to 50-200 chars with format hints. E.g., 'Absolute project root (e.g., /home/user/myproject). Must be a valid filesystem path. Omit for global notes.'
• Add error handling guidance in tool descriptions. E.g., 'If project_path is invalid, returns error with available projects. If content exceeds 500 chars, returns validation error with char count.'
• Cap stickies_read limit to 50 by default and document: 'Returns up to 50 most important stickies. Use limit and min_importance to filter. Pagination not yet supported; use project_path to scope results.'
• Clarify stickies_dismiss reason parameter: 'Optional reason for dismissal (logged for audit). Does not affect TTL, dismissed stickies are hidden but retained for 30 days.'