shared_memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it does contribute one genuinely useful trait: near-identical entries are deduplicated via SimHash, implying a write may merge rather than append. It omits scope/permissions, idempotency on repeated identical writes, and persistence lifetime — significant gaps for a write 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the dedup caveat follows immediately. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition leaves the highest-risk unknowns unaddressed: no annotation-backed safety profile, no parameter meaning for three of four fields, and no statement of when this memory store should be chosen over sibling memory/vault tools.

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% across four parameters, and the description compensates only for 'content' via the word "entries". tags, agent_id, and session_id — the fields that determine memory scoping and provenance — are unexplained with defaults ('unknown', '') that an agent cannot interpret from the text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Write to cross-agent shared memory") and the namespace makes its role obvious relative to siblings like shared_memory_search/list/forget. However, it never names an alternative or contrast case, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent must guess whether a fact belongs in shared memory versus one of the many record_*/remember_fragment/vault_write_* siblings that also accept content.

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