rms_write

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether writes are idempotent, how the vault handles duplicate paths, or if there are side effects. The description is too brief to inform the agent about write behavior beyond the purpose.

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 sentences with no superfluous text. The first sentence defines purpose and scope; the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on what happens after writing (e.g., return value, error handling). It covers when to use but not enough about the complete usage context.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'proactively' hints at timing) but does not elaborate on parameter relationships or usage tips. It meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 purpose ('Save new architectural decisions... to the RMS Memory vault') and provides specific examples of when to use it. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rms_read and rms_search by focusing on writing context.

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 explicitly instructs to use the tool 'PROACTIVELY at the end of a task' and lists concrete scenarios (new user preference, solved bug, architectural decision). However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives.

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