frida_write_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions that the written region is read back for verification, adding behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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?

Description is concise with a single sentence plus parameter list. It is front-loaded and structured. A bit more brevity could be achieved, but it is effective.

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?

No output schema, so return values are not explained. The description hints at verification but doesn't specify what is returned (e.g., success flag, written bytes). Also missing prerequisites (e.g., attached process). Given the sensitivity of memory writing, more completeness is needed.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: 'target' is process name or pid, 'address' is hex address with example, 'hex_bytes' is hex-encoded bytes with examples. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Write raw bytes to process memory') and specifies the resource. It lists parameters with formats, distinguishing it from siblings like frida_write_typed and frida_read_memory.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., frida_write_typed). No prerequisites or context provided. A simple mention of alternatives would improve usage clarity.

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