Write or update markdown files in agent memory to store and retrieve knowledge. Append or overwrite content for persistent local knowledge management.
Creates/updates a markdown file in _lexomni/agent (agent memory).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | overwrite | |
| content | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-devDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as a mutation that creates or updates a markdown file in a scoped location, but it does not disclose that the default mode is overwrite, how append behaves, side effects, or failure modes.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, object, location, and purpose are stated in order, making the core meaning immediately visible.
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?
For a simple three-parameter write tool, the description plus schema is enough to make a plausible call. Yet with no annotations or output schema, it lacks a bit of surrounding context such as overwrite semantics and how this write relates to the other lexomni tools like buildIndex.
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% and the description adds no meaning for filename, content, or mode. The schema shows the parameter names and the mode enum, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter-level guidance.
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?
States a specific action (creates/updates), a concrete resource (markdown file), and a precise location (_lexomni/agent). This clearly distinguishes it from the read/search/list/index siblings.
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 phrase 'agent memory' implies this is for persisting agent notes, and sibling names imply alternatives such as reading or searching. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives or 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.