gateway_memory_write

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

With no annotations beyond a title, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that data is stored in Postgres, but omits side effects, overwrite semantics, retention behavior, permissions, or any return value. For a write operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single sentence with no redundant wording, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load the most critical usage constraints. Given the tool's complexity, the brevity feels under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters and an output schema, the description offers almost no context. It does not mention what the output contains, how to structure content, what the different tiers mean, or any caveats about data persistence. For a write operation of this complexity, the description is severely incomplete.

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% and the description provides no parameter information. None of the 13 parameters (kind, tier, scope, content, subject, ttl_days, tags_json, confidence, source_uri, sensitivity, source_type, source_title, metadata_json) are explained in the description, leaving agents without any semantic guidance beyond their names and defaults.

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 states a clear action ('Store') and a specific resource ('memory'), and even distinguishes two memory tiers (short-term session/task vs medium-term project/team facts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this write operation from sibling memory tools like gateway_memory_search or gateway_memory_forget, though the verb implies a write. Slight ambiguity remains about what 'facts' vs 'session/task' means in practice.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for writing while memory_search is for reading, nor does it state any conditions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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