write_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful traits: idempotency_key makes a repeated call a safe no-op, content is limited to 300 words, and entities power a topic-to-page push. It does not cover permissions or overwrite semantics, but the key behavioral details are present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses compact labeled lines to explain each parameter's semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 no annotations, 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: it defines most parameter semantics and important behaviors like idempotency and word limit. It stops short of explicitly naming the content parameter and lacks sibling routing guidance, but is largely complete.

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 the description must compensate, and it does for four of five parameters: domain gets examples, importance gets a numeric interpretation, idempotency_key explains safe duplication, and entities explains linkage. The content parameter is only implicitly defined via 'one specific fact per call, under 300 words', which keeps it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Persist one durable fact or decision' and scopes it to one fact per call under 300 words. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like write_wiki or log_record, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Persist one durable fact or decision' and the importance scale, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as write_wiki or log_record. The domain examples and importance mapping are helpful parameter guidance rather than selection criteria.

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