memory_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Persist into multi-graph hierarchical memory' without clarifying whether this is an append, overwrite, or merge operation, what side effects occur (e.g., triggers consolidation), or any security or rate-limit implications. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence, making it concise but not sufficiently informative for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but it omits crucial details that could be added without significant bloat. The conciseness is acceptable but at the cost of completeness.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema not explained), the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to cover parameter meanings, behavioral nuances, or return values. This gap makes it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain any of the 8 parameters (level, content, agent_id, entities, metadata, importance, session_id, causal_parent). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and titles, which are ambiguous (e.g., 'level' could mean importance or hierarchy depth). The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 the tool persists into 'multi-graph hierarchical memory,' which identifies the general action and resource. However, the verb 'persist' is vague and less common than 'write' or 'store', and it does not specify what kind of data (content, entities, etc.) is being written. It also fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like memory_consolidate, which may also modify memory. The purpose is barely adequate.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use memory_write versus alternative memory tools (e.g., memory_read, memory_consolidate), nor does it mention prerequisites, conditions, or context. The agent receives no help in deciding whether this tool is appropriate.

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