memory_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates memory (write operation) and explains type parameter options. However, it lacks details on error handling, required permissions, or what happens on invalid addresses.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds parameter details. Could be slightly improved by structuring the type list more clearly, but overall efficient.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic write operation and type parameter. However, it omits critical context like address format, the effect of 'wide', return value, and error conditions, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'type' parameter by listing valid values and explains how to format 'aob' values as hex strings. However, it does not describe 'wide', 'address' format, or 'value' beyond type-specific hints, leaving gaps.

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?

Clearly states 'Write a value to memory', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_read, memory_alloc, etc., which do different operations.

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 implies usage when you want to write a value to a memory address, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It lists supported types, which gives context, but no direct guidance on selection among siblings.

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