engram_diary_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says almost nothing. It does not state whether entries persist, whether writes are append-only or overwrite existing entries, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains for a mutation tool.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a mutation tool in a multi-tool memory system.

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 write operation, three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do far more work. It leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently or to predict its effect.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Agent' and 'entry' are loosely inferable from the wording, but 'tags' is entirely unexplained and no format, length, or content expectations are given.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Write a diary entry') plus a scope qualifier ('for a specialist agent'), so the agent knows what operation is being performed. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling engram_diary_read or explain what a 'diary entry' represents in this memory system.

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?

There is no guidance on when to write a diary entry versus other memory tools such as engram_add_memory, engram_pin, or engram_kg_add, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'For a specialist agent' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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