write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: appends to the matching file, assigns a fresh sequential id, sets 'Status: active', and creates a new {TYPE}S.md file for unknown types. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but the core side effects are clearly communicated.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the type semantics and append behavior are packed into the remaining sentence. Every clause adds useful 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?

The description plus input schema covers the required fields, the valid type values, the file-based append behavior, and the handling of unknown types. Since an output schema exists, explaining the return value is unnecessary. The main gap is the lack of guidance for choosing between write and its sibling tools.

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 meaningfully enriches the 'type' parameter by enumerating valid values and explaining the file-naming behavior for unknown types. However, 'title', 'body', and 'tags' receive no semantic explanation beyond their property names and schema types.

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 and resource: 'Write a new memory entry.' It also clarifies that this is an append operation with a fresh sequential id, which distinguishes it from an update or overwrite. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate the sibling tools like update or log.

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 given about when to use write versus the sibling tools update, log, search, or read_all. The description implies this is for creating new entries, but it never states that update should be used for existing entries or what log is for.

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