memory_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully adds the 'Requires emulator to be stopped' precondition, but it does not describe side effects, failure behavior, or what happens when optional fields are omitted, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the core action, the second covers accepted formats and the critical precondition. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 basic operation, formats, and precondition, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, it fails to clarify why address is not required in the schema and what happens if it is omitted, which is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the format details already in the schema and adds only 'mixed formats allowed', which is minor. It also introduces ambiguity by mentioning hex string address prefixes while the schema declares address as an integer.

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 raw byte values into C64 memory', specifying the action, resource, and value type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_registers, write_text, and memory_read without needing to inspect them.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by stating 'Requires emulator to be stopped', which is a crucial precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the raw-memory-write purpose is specific enough to imply appropriate usage.

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