memorybank_write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions auto-reindexing and path preference but does not clarify overwrite behavior, file existence handling, permissions, or error scenarios. Basic disclosure but insufficient for a potentially destructive write operation.

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: two short sentences plus a warning line. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action, followed by a practical tip.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover error handling, overwrite behavior, permissions, or reindexing details. It lacks this context, leaving significant gaps for a reliable tool invocation.

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%, so the schema already describes all four parameters. The description adds a usage hint for absolute paths, which has minimal overlap with the schema's example. No additional semantics for content, projectId, or autoReindex. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool writes a file and automatically reindexes it in the Memory Bank. The verb 'Escribe' and object 'un archivo' are specific, and the auto-reindexing distinguishes it from siblings like memorybank_read_file or memorybank_index_code.

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 advises using an absolute path to avoid errors and provides an example. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memorybank_index_code, memorybank_read_file), and no when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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