memory_write

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

Annotations indicate no destruction and not open world. The description adds context about elevated permissions for directive type and confidence usage. However, it does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or whether writing always creates new entries (vs. overwriting). The description provides moderate additional context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear one-liner, then usage guidance, types, scopes, and parameters. It is front-loaded and each section is purposeful. While verbose, the complexity of the tool justifies the length; could be slightly tighter but remains 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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description thoroughly covers all six parameters, including nuanced guidance on confidence and tags. It addresses various use cases and constraints, making it highly complete for a write tool.

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 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value by explaining the taxonomy of entry types (memory, doc, directive, skill) and scopes (project, agent) with usage details. This goes beyond the schema defaults and provides meaningful guidance for parameter selection.

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 'Write something to shared memory' and provides extensive guidance on what to write, types, and scopes. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like memory_list, memory_get, etc., by focusing on the write operation.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this often' and provides detailed scenarios for when to write, including facts, decisions, bugs, etc. It also explains types that require special permissions (directive) or roles (doc for archivist). However, it does not directly compare against similar write tools like memory_update.

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