zahadun_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. It discloses a key behavior: creates a new file and never overwrites others' entries. However, it does not mention failure modes, permissions, or side effects beyond file creation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main action and adding only relevant details about the parameter and non-overwriting behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations; the description covers only one parameter meaningfully and omits usage guidance vs siblings. Though an output schema exists, it does not mitigate the lack of parameter explanations and contextual details.

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 `temat` and references `wspolne`, but leaves `tor`, `tagi`, `tresc`, and `tytul` completely unexplained. With 6 parameters and 2 required, this is insufficient for effective usage.

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 to mesh memory, creates a new file, and never overwrites others' entries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_read and memory_search, and the specific verb 'write' combined with the resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 useful parameter-level guidance for `temat` (contextId vs shared slug with wspolne=true), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_search or memory_read. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with siblings.

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