Write base64-encoded bytes to a DOSBox guest's physical memory at a specified offset for direct memory modification and debugging.
Write bytes to guest physical memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Base64-encoded data to write. | |
| offset | Yes | Physical memory offset to write to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=false already tells the agent this is a mutation, and the description correctly reinforces that it targets guest physical memory. However, for a memory-write tool it discloses no behavioral risk: no indication that bad offsets can corrupt or hang the guest, no bounds/alignment constraints, and no return or error behavior. With no output schema, the burden is higher than a 3.
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?
One short sentence with the verb and target front-loaded, zero filler. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.
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 mutating tool with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond readOnlyHint=false, the description is too thin. It omits safety caveats, offset validity expectations, and behavioral outcomes an agent needs before writing to arbitrary physical memory.
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%, so both parameters (base64 data, integer offset) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, encoding, or alignment detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 resource (guest physical memory bytes), which is immediately distinguishable from mem_read/mem_search by the mutation verb. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, relying on the name and verb to carry the distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of the mem_read sibling. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.