n2_core_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: persistence ('stored permanently') and a side effect ('injected at every boot'), so the agent knows writes have lasting context impact. It omits overwrite/is-idempotent semantics when the same key is rewritten, plus any permission or size constraints, which are material for a mutation tool.

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 resource, with no filler. Every clause ('Stored permanently', 'injected at every boot') carries distinct behavioral information.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core behavior is conveyed, but with zero annotations the description should still answer what happens on a duplicate key and whether the write is upsert or append. Those gaps matter given that the value persists across every future boot.

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 only 3 flat string parameters, so the schema already defines agent, key, and value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g. whether 'agent' must match a booted agent name), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Write') and a specific resource ('agent-specific core memory'), which is enough to distinguish it from n2_core_read and from the other write siblings (n2_kv_save, n2_brain_write). It does not explicitly name how it differs from those sibling write tools, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative, but 'Stored permanently, injected at every boot' implicitly signals this is for durable, high-value facts rather than scratch state. The agent must infer when to pick this over n2_kv_save or n2_brain_write, which is left ambiguous.

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