memory_write_checked

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

The description discloses the core behavior around optimistic concurrency: success only if version matches, else a conflict is returned. While it doesn't cover edge cases like missing keys or success return format, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. With no annotations, this is a solid disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, no wasted words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 concurrency mechanism, conflict behavior, and the problem it solves. It does not describe successful return values or edge cases, but given the schema provides parameter defaults and the description is concise, it is reasonably complete for agent use.

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?

The description explains the meaning of 'key' (the write target) and 'expected_version' (the version that must match current), which is critical. However, 'text' and 'namespace' are left unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more fully for all parameters.

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 performs an optimistic-concurrency write by key, with a specific mechanism (succeeds only if current version equals expected_version) and purpose (prevents lost updates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'upsert' by highlighting the concurrency check.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when multiple agents write the same key and lost updates must be prevented. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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