n2_brain_write

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the write goes to a shared, agent-visible location, which is useful context, but says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing filename, size limits, permissions/auth, or whether parent directories are created. For a mutation tool these are material omissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target location. The second sentence is slightly vague but does add usage intent, so nothing is clearly 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?

For a simple two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. Given the crowded sibling set of competing storage tools, it should at least name the distinction from n2_core_write/n2_kv_save and state what happens on filename collision.

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 100%, with both parameters documented ('File content' and 'File path relative to memory directory'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, encoding, extension, or path-safety guidance beyond the schema.

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: 'Write a file to shared memory (data/memory/)'. The parenthetical path gives concrete scope, so an agent knows exactly what this does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as n2_core_write or n2_kv_save, which also persist data.

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?

'Share information between agents' implies the use case (cross-agent coordination via a shared filesystem), which is real guidance rather than none. But with 28 siblings including n2_core_write and n2_kv_save, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this store over those, leaving the agent to infer.

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