edb_write_memory_bytes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description confirms this with 'write raw hex bytes' and mentions the return value (confirmation of byte count). It adds value by specifying hex format examples, but does not detail potential risks like invalid addresses or memory protection violations, which would be helpful.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a usage hint, and an Args block with parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses minimal words, earning its place without 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 is relatively simple, and the description covers write operation and return type. However, it omits critical context such as the need for memory to be writable, potential crashes on invalid addresses, and interaction with process state (e.g., required paused state). This lack of completeness could lead to failed tool invocations.

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 provides descriptions for 'address' and 'hex_bytes', giving example formats. The description reinforces these with similar examples (e.g., '0x400000', '90 90 90'). Since schema_description_coverage is reported as 0% (though the schema does contain descriptions), the description partially compensates but does not fully explain expected formats beyond basic examples.

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 raw hex bytes to memory starting at an address, and explicitly mentions use cases like patching NOP sleds or shellcode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_fill_memory (which fills with a pattern) and edb_write_memory (which may write other data types).

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 implies usage for patching multiple bytes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_fill_memory for single-byte fills, edb_fill_memory for patterns). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., memory must be writable) and exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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