memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions the write operation but omits details about safety, side effects, return values, or whether it overwrites existing data. The description is minimal on behavior beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain error handling, return values, or behavior for unspecified fields. The tool's complexity demands more detail for complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains only 4 of 13 parameters (content, subject, tags, source_type) with values for source_type, leaving the majority undocumented. The added value is limited to a few fields.

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 tool writes structured memory to a cross-tool shared memory repository, specifying required and recommended fields. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_confirm by focusing on the write operation.

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 implies usage by listing required and recommended fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_arbitrate or memory_confirm. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions is provided.

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