write_memory

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

With no annotations, the description provides important behavioral traits: requires consent, can crash the game, bridge validates and snapshots before writing, returns old value for revert. This adequately informs the agent of risks and safety mechanisms.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by consent, caution, validation, args list, and returns. The information is front-loaded and no unnecessary sentences are present.

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?

Given the complexity (dangerous write operation) and low schema coverage, the description adequately explains parameters, behavior, and return value. It provides enough context for safe usage, though could mention persistence behavior.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that address can be a hex address or expression, value is converted to the specified type, and type options are listed ('byte', 'int16', etc.). This compensates for the 0% schema description 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?

Description clearly states 'Write a typed value to a memory address' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory or revert_last_write.

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?

Mentions 'Requires explicit consent' and provides caution about crashes, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_memory for reading). No explicit 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.