frida_memory_write

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. It discloses the precondition of an active session, but it does not mention that writing to process memory is potentially destructive, irreversible, or could crash the target process. There is no information about permissions, error handling, or side effects beyond the basic write action. This is significant for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clear list of arguments with explanations and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary verbosity or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set (3 params, no nested objects) and an output schema, so return values are covered by that schema. The description covers the essential action and all parameters, but it lacks important behavioral context such as the risk of memory corruption or the need for appropriate permissions. For a tool that modifies process memory, this incompleteness could lead an agent to misuse it without understanding the consequences.

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 provides only types (integer, string), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: pid is the target process PID, address is a hex address string with an example, and hex_data is hex-encoded bytes with an example. It also adds the requirement of an active session for the PID. While it doesn't cover every possible constraint (e.g., address alignment or data length limits), it provides solid semantic meaning for all three parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Write bytes to process memory.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_memory_read (reads memory) and frida_memory_scan (scans memory), making the purpose completely unambiguous.

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 usage: when you need to write bytes to a process's memory, use this tool. It provides a key prerequisite ('must have active session') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The tool's purpose and context make it obvious for the intended use case, but the lack of explicit exclusions or comparison to sibling tools is a gap.

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