dbg_write_memWrite bytes to specific memory addresses in a debugged process to patch code or alter variables during reverse engineering.
Write memory to debugged process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regions | Yes | List of {address, bytes: [int,...]} | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutation tool that overwrites live process memory, it omits whether the target must be stopped, whether writes are reversible, what permissions or instance targeting are needed, and what happens on failure.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the key operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is terse by under-specification rather than by tight editing.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and destructive semantics, the description should cover preconditions, safety, and result behavior. It covers none of these, leaving the agent insufficiently informed for a memory-mutating debug operation.
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 regions, timeout, and instance_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (write) and resource (memory) scoped to the debugged process, which cleanly separates it from the sibling dbg_read_mem. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or contrasting behavior, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as patch_bytes, apply_patch, or dbg_read_mem, nor any prerequisite (e.g. target must be paused/attached). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.