write_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the mutation ('write ... to .context/ files') and distinguishes additive append from replacing overwrite, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not warn that overwrite discards existing content or describe what happens on repeated writes, so the destructive edge of the tool is only implied, not disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, roughly 40 words, with the core action front-loaded and every sentence earning its place: what it does, mode-to-file mapping, and usage intent. It repeats nothing from the schema and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, both modes, and the intended use case, while the 100%-covered schema handles parameter details including project_path resolution. The only notable gap is the unstated destructive consequence of overwrite, which is already accounted for under behavioral transparency.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by pairing action enum values with specific file enum values — guidance the schema does not provide — so agents know e.g. to append gotchas and overwrite progress. This mapping meaningfully reduces ambiguity in constructing entries.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Batch write memory entries to .context/ files' — and immediately differentiates the two write modes. It clearly distinguishes from the sync_* siblings (sync_init, sync_push, sync_load), which handle context synchronization rather than writing memory entries, so an agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this to record discoveries, decisions, and progress during development' is an explicit when-to-use signal, and the append/overwrite mapping ('append for gotchas, architecture, api_notes; overwrite for progress, summary') routes the agent to the correct mode per file type. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that exclusions are not critical.

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