Write memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool auto-creates the store and commits writes, but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing memories, git conflict handling, or permission requirements. The behavioral information is useful but incomplete.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose with no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 the moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required) and high schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It adds context about the git-backed store and auto-creation. However, it lacks details on idempotency or behavior when a memory with the same title exists, which would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema covers 83% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra param-specific semantics beyond the schema, such as formatting or constraints on the 'content' or 'tags' parameters. It merely reiterates the overall behavior.

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 verb ('Persist a memory') and the resource ('for the current git repo'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by highlighting auto-creation and git-backed store. It explains the side effect of committing the write, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for persisting a single memory, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like memory_ingest (possible bulk ingestion) or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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