memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether writing overwrites an existing key, requires unique keys, has permission requirements, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but lacks the enriching details that would make it truly valuable; still it is not overlong and gets to the point.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, overwrite behavior, key uniqueness, or interaction with sibling tools like memory_read/delete, leaving a notable completeness gap.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond naming the action itself, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Write') and the resource ('a memory entry to the knowledge base'), which distinguishes it from sibling read/search/list/delete operations. However, it could be more specific about the target knowledge base or the write semantics (e.g., create vs. update).

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like memory_update or context_set. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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