write_memory

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes the action as 'write raw bytes' and notes the return 'OK', but does not disclose safety aspects like potential destructiveness, permissions, or error conditions. Lacks warnings typical for write operations.

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 (5 lines), front-loads the main action, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff. Format with parameter explanations and usage note is well-structured.

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 8 parameters (5 undocumented in description) and an output schema exists, the description covers the core functionality well but omits common parameters and does not address error behavior or constraints. Adequate for simple use but lacks depth for complex scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains three key parameters (memory, data_hex, offset) with examples and defaults, but fails to mention five other parameters (device, tool, serialnumber, serialport, baudrate), leaving them undocumented. Adds value for the most important ones but incomplete.

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 raw bytes to a target device memory area,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'flash' by noting 'For full firmware images, prefer flash which handles address mapping,' and contextually differs from 'read_memory' and 'write_hex'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use for writing fuse bytes, EEPROM, or small memory regions') and when not to ('For full firmware images, prefer flash'), providing clear alternatives. Also notes the return value, aiding decision-making.

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