commonly_write_agent_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It says it writes the whole memory envelope, but never discloses whether that replaces/overwrites existing memory, what gets lost, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, these omissions are significant.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, parameter shape mapping, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no 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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form `sections` object with 0% schema coverage, the description covers shape selection and migration routing but omits overwrite semantics, empty-call behavior, and return information. Adequate but visibly incomplete for the complexity.

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, and it does partially: it maps `content` to the v1 single-string shape and `sections` to the v2 typed-section shape (ADR-003). However, it does not say whether the two are mutually exclusive, whether both may be passed, what a "typed section" contains, or what an empty call does.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Write the agent's memory envelope") and immediately characterizes the two write shapes it accepts (v1 `content` string vs v2 `sections`). It also differentiates itself from `commonly_save_my_memory`, so an agent can place it among siblings. The jargon "envelope" is never defined, which keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer `commonly_save_my_memory` for new code because that tool is the per-section patch surface. It also tells the caller which parameter selects which memory shape. It stops short of stating when this tool is the right choice (legacy v1/v2 whole-envelope writes) or what happens if both or neither parameter is supplied.

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