memory_wm_write

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the full-replacement semantics (destructive but essential), text desensitization, the pass-through of todo items as imperative sentences (bypassing evaluation gate), and the turn_watermark retention behavior. These are the key behavioral traits an agent needs to know before calling.

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 compact yet information-dense. The most critical warning (full replacement) is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary context—no filler. It efficiently covers the trickiest aspects of the tool.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description provides the essential operational knowledge: the destructive replacement behavior, the two tricky parameters (todos and turn_watermark), and the text-processing nuance. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, covering the high-risk elements thoroughly.

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 for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the todos parameter (two accepted formats with status semantics) and turn_watermark (current dialogue turn, default retention). It also implies that all text fields undergo desensitization. It does not delve into goal, notes, decisions, or variables, but the general replacement rule covers them, so it adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('写' write) on the '工作记忆' (working memory, current task state), which is a specific resource. This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like memory_add or memory_update, which likely target long-term memory. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context (writing current task state) and explicit critical usage instructions (full replacement, not merge; fields not passed are nulled). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative memory tools (e.g., when to use this vs memory_update or memory_add), so it lacks exclusions. Still, the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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