mneme_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity, path containment, and frontmatter applicability. However, it does not explain the behavior when replacing a section (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges), nor what happens if the file does not exist (implicitly creates? crashes?). Some key behaviors are omitted.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the purpose and key behaviors. Every phrase adds value: atomicity, operation type, path safety, frontmatter condition. No wasted words or repetition.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is functional but incomplete. It fails to explain the return value (if any), error conditions, or the exact semantics of 'replace'. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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 schema has 60% coverage with descriptions for 3 of 5 parameters. The description adds context for 'path' (enforces assertWithinVault) and 'frontmatter' (applies only to new files). However, the 'replace' parameter lacks explanation of its effect, and 'content' and 'section' rely solely on schema definitions. Not significantly more value than schema.

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 tool appends or replaces a markdown section in a vault file atomically, with precise scope and resource. The action and object are specific, and the name 'mneme_write' distinguishes it from sibling tools like mneme_recall (read) or mneme_search (search).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mneme_recall or mneme_search. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided. The context signals show sibling tools exist, but the description offers no differentiation in usage.

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