memory_write

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds context about what is written (facts, decisions, etc.) and how to use it, but does not detail side effects beyond writing. It could mention if it overwrites or appends, but overall it provides sufficient behavioral insight.

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 brief purpose, then usage guidelines, followed by types/scopes, and finally argument details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown but present), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral context thoroughly. It even hints at related tools (e.g., using tags to make memory_list useful). For a write tool, this is very complete.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args:' section that explains all 6 parameters in detail, covering their purpose, defaults, and usage examples (e.g., confidence: 'How certain you are (0.0–1.0). Default 1.0. Use lower for guesses.'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a comprehensive list of when to use it, including specific examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_delete, memory_get, etc., by focusing on writing.

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 says 'Use this often.' and gives extensive examples of what to write. It also distinguishes between types (memory vs doc) and scopes (project vs agent). However, it lacks explicit comparison to other sibling tools for when not to use it.

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