write_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the return shape ({"id": record_id}), the validation failure mode and error payload for empty/blank content, that the primary key is server-generated, and that 'client' is audit-only and auto-detected. It omits concurrency/duplicate-handling behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Core action and return value are front-loaded, and each sentence is informative. The full bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length, but the structure remains clean and non-repetitive per language.

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 4-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return value, error case, and all parameter roles, which is enough for correct invocation. Remaining gaps (duplicate handling, size limits on content) are minor.

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, and it does: content is defined as the fact/note/summary text, project selects the sub-store with 'empty = global', client is audit-bucketing only, and tags is optional. Tags get only a bare mention, leaving room for richer semantics.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('write a memory short text (fact/note/summary)') and scopes the content type, so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_memory or add_document, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It hints at content type (fact/note/summary) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over update_memory, add_document, or add_webpage, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and contents.

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