Write Memory

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying a write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the memory is stored in markdown format and should have a meaningful name, which helps the agent understand behavioral expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-load the core purpose and key requirements. Every word adds value: the first sentence covers action, content, format, and purpose; the second emphasizes naming quality. No wasted words or 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?

Given a destructive tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage) and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and format but lacks parameter details and behavioral nuances like error handling or idempotency. The output schema may help with return values, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the low parameter coverage.

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 mentions 'memory name should be meaningful' (hinting at memory_file_name) and 'information... to a memory' (hinting at content), but doesn't explain max_answer_chars or provide details on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 some information') and resource ('to a memory'), specifying the format ('md format') and encoding ('utf-8-encoded'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_memory' and 'edit_memory' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_text_file' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 context ('about this project', 'useful for future tasks'), suggesting when to use it for project documentation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'create_text_file' or 'edit_memory', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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