write_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the optimistic-concurrency-like behavior (updates require revision), which is valuable and goes beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral details such as conflict handling, idempotency, permissions, or what happens on creation with an existing ID. This is partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loading the main action ('Create or update Memory') and then adding the critical update requirement. There is no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly concise and 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 seven parameters and a create/update dual-mode, the description is incomplete. It addresses the update prerequisite but does not explain the distinction between create and update in terms of which parameters are needed, nor does it mention tags/importance defaults or conflict behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks sufficient usage context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only indirectly references 'expected_revision' via the word 'revision,' leaving the other six parameters (id, content, actor_id, role, tags, importance) unexplained. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Create or update Memory.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the resource name 'Memory' distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory and list_memory. An agent can easily understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 an explicit usage prerequisite: 'Updates require the revision returned by read_memory.' This tells the agent to call read_memory first when updating, which is a clear context for correct use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource naming and the update requirement give sufficient guidance for choosing this tool over read/list operations.

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