write_memory

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core mutation (writing bytes) and the hex string format with whitespace tolerance. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, failure modes, permissions, or what the output contains, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 three sentences with the main action front-loaded. The data format example is immediately useful and not redundant with the schema, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The description covers the non-trivial data format and symmetry with read_memory, but omits the meaning of session_id, which is required and not obvious from the schema. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described, but the missing parameter context leaves the tool incomplete for invocation.

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. It explains addr as the start location and data as a hex string with examples, but completely omits session_id, leaving one of three required parameters unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Poke bytes into memory starting at addr'. It clearly differentiates from sibling read_memory by explicitly noting it is symmetric and that read_memory's hex output can be round-tripped back in.

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 that this is the write counterpart to read_memory, implying it should be used to modify memory with data obtained from read_memory. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling symmetry provides practical guidance.

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