put_int

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or whether writes are persistent or volatile.

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 a single focused sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 of writing to memory addresses (a mutation operation), the description lacks crucial context such as required instance state, memory permissions, overwrite behavior, and error handling. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these omissions.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema includes detailed descriptions for each parameter (addr format, integer class, value syntax). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Write integer values to memory addresses', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Write') and specifies the resource ('integer values to memory addresses'), making it distinct from siblings like get_int (read) and patch (general patches).

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?

No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patch, get_int). The description offers no context for selection among siblings.

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