memory_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains behavioral traits: directive type forces confidence to 1.0, different scopes affect visibility, tags aid retrieval. However, it omits the return value format and any potential side effects (e.g., overwriting). Given the presence of an output schema, the description is still strong.

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 with clear sections (Types, Scopes, Args) and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the length is appropriate given the complexity of the tool. No 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances. Given the presence of an output schema, the missing return value description is acceptable. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning error conditions or limits, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter, e.g., 'Use them — they make memory_list useful' for tags, and clarifying confidence usage. It also groups parameters into types and scopes with contextual advice.

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 distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_list, memory_search, memory_delete. It emphasizes reading agent context and using memory_write for storing new 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this often' and lists numerous scenarios for usage (facts, decisions, bugs, plans, etc.). It explains when to use different entry types (memory, doc, directive) and scopes (project, agent), and includes caveats like 'doc: normally written by the archivist' and 'directive: requires elevated permission'.

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