nexus_memory_write

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true already signals safety for retries. The description adds the behavioral trait 'Survives across sessions,' which provides durability context. However, it does not disclose whether writing to an existing key overwrites, appends, or errors, nor does it describe the return value. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action ('Store a persistent memory') and follows with a clarifying list of content types and a durability statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 memory-write tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, content scope, and durability. The schema fully documents parameters, and the annotation covers idempotency. It does not mention overwrite/update behavior or return value, but these are minor gaps for a write operation with no output schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (key, value, tags, namespace), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-relevant guidance by listing content types (knowledge, decision, gotcha, preference) that could inform the 'value' parameter, but it does not go beyond the schema's own semantics.

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 with a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('a persistent memory'), and it enumerates the types of content ('knowledge, decision, gotcha, or preference'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like nexus_memory_search and nexus_memory_forget by emphasizing persistent storage across sessions.

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 when to use the tool ('Store a persistent memory') but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It lacks exclusions or direction such as 'for retrieval, use nexus_memory_search' or 'for deletion, use nexus_memory_forget'. The use case is understandable but not fully contextualized among siblings.

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