edb_write_memory

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms it modifies memory. It adds the context of patching but does not disclose further behavioral traits like permission requirements or potential side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 and front-loaded: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a brief Args section. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple write tool with output schema indicating a confirmation string and annotations covering destructive nature, the description provides sufficient context. It includes use case, parameter examples, and return value, making it complete given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already has descriptions for both parameters (address and data) with examples. The description repeats similar examples and adds a minor use hint (NOP), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a value to a memory address and is used for patching code or data. The verb 'write' and resource 'memory address' are specific, and the use case differentiates it from similar tools like edb_read_memory.

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 mentions using the tool for patching code or data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it with alternatives such as edb_write_memory_bytes.

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