write_project_memory

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate those. It adds some context by emphasizing durability and provenance, but it does not explain important behaviors such as overwrite/supersede semantics or what happens when the same key is written again.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is easy to scan, though the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, 5 required, no schema descriptions, and no parameter guidance in the description. An agent cannot confidently determine allowed kind values, the expected format of value_json, or the semantics of supersedes, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 by explaining parameters, but it only hints at provenance for run/node fields. The meanings of kind, key, value_json, status, confidence, supersedes, and artifact_id are left entirely to the agent to infer from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and identifies the resource ('durable memory entry with provenance' written to 'the backing store'), so an agent can tell this is a persistence operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like record_decision or record_failure_mode, which may also write memory entries.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_decision, record_failure_mode, or search_project_memory. There are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the choice of tool to inference.

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