memory_write

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses write attribution (recorded_by=anvaiops-mcp), immediate searchability after commit, and an experimental async-ingest caveat that meaningfully changes how an agent should reason about read-after-write. It does not cover permissions/auth requirements, partial-failure behavior for the batch, or the 25-record cap, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then attribution/timeliness, then the experimental caveat. Every clause adds information and none is padding.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity of the write, visibility semantics, and a maturity caveat, which is most of what an agent needs to invoke it safely. It is thin on batch limits and failure/retry behavior, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

Only one top-level parameter ('records') exists and it is undocumented at that level; the description never says writes are batched, that the array accepts 1–25 items, or how the listed content types map onto fields like text/source/status. The nested item fields do carry their own schema descriptions, which partially compensates, but the batch semantics are left to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Persist a memory') plus the intent ('so future agents and engineers find it'), and enumerates the kinds of content it accepts (incident resolution, fix applied, decision + rationale, runbook step). This makes it unmistakably the write counterpart to memory_search/memory_status without needing to name them.

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 content-type list ('incident resolution, fix applied, decision + rationale, runbook step') gives a clear positive trigger for when to call it. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the sibling read tool as the alternative path, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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