openclaw_memory_write

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it writes to a daily log but does not specify whether it appends or overwrites, note length limits, or persistence details. For a write operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word adds value, making it efficient for AI parsing.

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 write tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage. However, it omits critical details like append vs. overwrite behavior and any limits, which are important for completeness. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, achieving baseline score. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'The note to save' and 'Optional category/tag'). No additional semantic value is provided.

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 specifies the verb 'Write a note' and the resource 'today's daily memory log on the OpenClaw server'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_memory_read_today and openclaw_memory_search, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'for capturing important context, decisions, or things to remember'. While it doesn't list alternatives, sibling tool names imply read/search tools exist, making the usage context clear.

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