Write Memory

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying a write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the content format (UTF-8, markdown) and purpose (for future tasks), and hints at persistence. However, it doesn't detail side effects like overwriting existing memories or authentication needs, which could be useful given the destructive nature.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action and purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive write with 3 parameters), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (though not provided here), reducing the burden on the description. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and key parameters but lacks details on error handling or output format. It's mostly complete for an agent to use correctly, with minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'memory_file_name' by stating it 'should be meaningful' and for 'content' by specifying UTF-8 and markdown format. However, it doesn't explain 'max_answer_chars' or its default value of -1, leaving one parameter undocumented. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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 verb 'write' and resource 'memory' with specific details: writing UTF-8 encoded information in markdown format for future project tasks. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_memory' and 'edit_memory' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_text_file' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 for storing project information for future tasks, suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as whether to choose 'create_text_file' for non-memory files or 'edit_memory' for updates. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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