memory_claude_bridge_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that read stores a last-read snapshot and audit entry without creating durable memories, that write destructively overwrites MEMORY.md under a line budget, and that both require an enabled bridge. It does not describe read's return payload, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed by mode behavior and the alternative. Every clause adds distinct information with no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, destructive write behavior, side effects, and write return values (path and line count). Only the read-mode return shape is left unspecified, a minor omission.

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, and the description exceeds it by giving operational semantics for each direction value (read parses/stores, write overwrites/returns path+line count) rather than merely restating the enum meanings.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (exchange data with the Claude Code MEMORY.md bridge) and clearly enumerates the two operational modes via direction='read'/'write'. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like memory_export without opening any schema.

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?

Explains what each direction does and names an explicit alternative ('Use memory_export for a complete JSON backup'), giving clear routing for the backup case. It also states prerequisites (enabled bridge, configured path), but offers no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the export pointer.

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