write_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions writing to memory in md format but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether existing memories are overwritten, whether memory names must be unique, or any potential side effects. The mutation implied by 'Write' is not elaborated.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Write some information'), and each clause adds relevant information (project usefulness, md format, meaningful name). It is slightly run-on but remains concise and free of unnecessary filler.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description should address overwrite behavior, naming constraints, and parameter meanings. It currently leaves significant gaps, making it incomplete for a write/mutation 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?

The input schema has three parameters (content, memory_name, max_answer_chars) with 0% description coverage. The description only indirectly hints at memory_name and content, and the phrase 'memory name should be meaningful' adds some semantic value. However, the max_answer_chars parameter is completely unexplained, and the description does not provide sufficient detail to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: writing project information to a memory in md format for future use. It explicitly mentions the format ('md format') and the need for a meaningful name, which distinguishes it from related memory tools like read_memory, delete_memory, and list_memories.

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 implies usage context by saying 'that can be useful for future tasks', providing a clear reason to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when to use write_memory vs create_text_file) or provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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