memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write/update action, default scope ('personal'), and content format. However, it omits details like overwrite behavior, file creation vs. update, and any side effects (e.g., loss of previous content). The expected behavioral traits are partially covered but not comprehensively.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core action, and packs essential details (default scope, content format) without waste. Each sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, default behavior, and content requirements. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error states, but for a straightforward write tool, the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by specifying that content should include YAML frontmatter with specific keys (name, description, type), which is not fully detailed in the schema. This extra guidance helps the agent construct correct inputs.

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/update a memory file') and identifies the resource ('memory file'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like memory_read, memory_delete, and memory_list by focusing on creation/modification. The format requirement ('markdown with YAML frontmatter') further specifies its use case.

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_create, memory_update) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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