scratchpad_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Auto-expires (default 24h)' and 'is never synced', plus the non-durable nature. It does not specify whether writing replaces or appends existing notes for the same session_id, which is a minor gap, but overall it covers critical transient 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key caveats and alternatives. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, lifetime, sync behavior, durability distinction, and session scope. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description redundantly mentions 'default 24h' which is already in the schema, and it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'content', 'ttl_hours', or 'session_id'.

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 uses the specific verb 'jot' with a clear resource and scope: 'SHORT-TERM working note for the current session' with examples of content. It explicitly distinguishes from durable memory by naming 'memory_write/memory_propose', which differentiates from sibling 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context: for intermediate findings, plans, hypotheses, task state in the current session. It gives a clear exclusion: 'NOT durable memory — use memory_write/memory_propose for knowledge that should persist across sessions', naming alternatives.

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