Check Memory Write for Injection Patterns

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read (consistent with a scan that does not itself persist), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: what patterns are targeted (fake role markers, overrides, instruction-like text), why (future sessions re-trusting the memory), and the conditional governance behavior of memory_scope. It could still be clearer on the exact return shape beyond the 'allowed' flag.

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 gating purpose and the pre-write timing are front-loaded in the first sentence. The paragraph is dense but long, with some parenthetical asides (the WhitePact disclaimer) that could be tightened while still earning their 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?

With only 2 well-documented params and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, timing, and failure branch. The one remaining gap is the full shape of the result object, though it does name the 'allowed' field that drives the caller's decision.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that memory_scope is a namespaced target checked for cross-tenant/cross-agent isolation only under governance, adding semantic meaning the schema field alone does not convey.

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 gives a specific verb (gate/scan) and resource (a write to persistent agent memory), and explicitly limits the scope to persistent long-term stores rather than a general content filter. It is easily distinguished from the sibling rai_memory_read_check by the 'write' orientation and the pre-persist timing.

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 gives an explicit call sequence ("Call this BEFORE actually persisting the write") and a concrete decision rule ("if 'allowed' is false, do not write it"). It also discloses that the memory_scope isolation check only fires under governed dispatch, allowing the agent to predict when the extra check applies.

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