Write Memory Proposal

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive or open-world hints. The description adds the target location but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing entries), required permissions, or error behavior. It provides minimal extra context beyond annotations.

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 very concise. However, it omits critical details about parameters and usage, so it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and a complex sibling set, the description only specifies the destination. It lacks explanations of parameter semantics, return values (despite an output schema), and behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for informed tool selection.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the six parameters. It does not describe what 'title', 'content', 'tags', 'project', 'source_ref', or 'source_kind' represent, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 verb (Write) and the resource (reviewed proposal candidate to inbox/llm-captures/). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like memory.capture_import or memory.conflict_merge_proposal, which also involve writing but with different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a proposal should be considered 'reviewed' or if there are prerequisites. The agent has no context for selection among many similar write tools.

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