logicmem_a2a_write_shared

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It merely states 'write' which implies mutation, but gives no details on idempotency, overwrite behavior, permissions, or side effects. This is a critical omission.

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 short sentence, which is efficient in word count, but it lacks necessary detail. It does not earn its place because it fails to inform the agent adequately.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or parameter constraints, leaving the agent underserved.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantic meaning to any parameter. The agent must guess the roles of agent_id, client_id, tags, category, importance, is_private, etc.

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 action (write) and the target (memory to shared A2A pool). It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any potential write-like siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions are mentioned. The description provides no context for selection.

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