memory_write

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

Provides good behavioral context: explains that values are screened by agent-memory-guard with possible outcomes (allow/redact/quarantine/block), mentions self-poisoning detection driven by source_class, and describes optional memory_class. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 concise—three sentences—with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, providing key details without fluff.

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?

Covers behavioral traits like screening and provenance, but does not address return values, error handling, or constraints on key/value (e.g., length, format). An output schema exists but is not shown; given no annotations, some gaps in completeness remain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists possible values for source_class and gives an example for memory_class, adding meaning beyond schema titles. However, key and value parameters are not described; their roles must be inferred. The description adds value but leaves important gaps.

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?

Clearly states 'Write a value to guarded mem9 memory', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_delete, memory_list, memory_read, which are obviously different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for storing values, but does not mention when not to use or compare with other memory tools. Usage context is left to inference.

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