frida_write_typed

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential side effects (e.g., process crash), required permissions, or whether the write is atomic. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear action statement followed by parameter definitions in a readable format. However, the parameter list could be slightly more streamlined without the code block, but it remains 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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks prerequisites (e.g., active session, attached process) and does not mention any return value or error conditions. For a memory write tool, this is minimally adequate.

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?

The description adds full meaning to all four parameters beyond the schema's basic type definitions. It explains 'target' as process name/pid, 'address' as hex address, and lists the valid types with their string representations. Schema coverage is 0%, so this is essential.

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 'Write a typed value to process memory,' specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'frida_write_memory' by emphasizing the typed nature of the value.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'frida_write_memory' or when not to use it. The description lacks context for proper selection.

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