memory_write

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Create or replace', but does not explain what 'replace' entails (e.g., full overwrite or merge), side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with many optional fields.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise, but could benefit from a brief explanation of replacement behavior or required fields. Still, no extraneous content.

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?

With 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain the return value, how replacement works, or how to use the many optional parameters like tags, type, status, etc., making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 only 28%, so the description should add meaning for the many undocumented parameters. However, the description only references project_id (scope) and does not explain any other parameter (e.g., tags, type, status, confidence, etc.), leaving a significant gap.

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 verb 'Create or replace' and the resource 'named memory node', along with scope differentiation (project-scoped vs global based on project_id). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like memory_read and memory_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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use memory_write instead of task_create or other write tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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