Write memory

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

The description reveals that Qwen derives summary, tags, importance, and kind, which is beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it doesn't cover side effects, idempotency, or limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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 efficient sentences: first defines purpose with examples, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a 4-parameter write tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral nuances (derived fields). Lacks some details like return value or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, only tying the concept of 'content' to the tool's purpose.

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 tool persists user memories, with specific examples (preference, fact, commitment, event). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (forget, recall_context, search) by focusing on writing new information.

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 second sentence explicitly says when to call: 'whenever the user reveals durable information you should recall in future sessions.' No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned, but the context is clear.

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