write_memory

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description implies a write operation ('write memory'), creating a potential contradiction. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or effects on existing data, leaving gaps despite 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently states the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks crucial context: no clarification on the contradiction with annotations, no parameter details despite 0% schema coverage, and no differentiation from siblings. For a write-like operation with behavioral ambiguity, this is incomplete.

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, but it provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'memory_file_name', 'content', or 'max_answer_chars' mean, their formats, or how they interact, failing to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 states the action ('write memory') and target ('project store'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'memory' means in this context or differentiate from siblings like 'edit_memory' or 'delete_memory', leaving ambiguity about scope and distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_memory', 'delete_memory', or 'read_memory'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the memory file must exist or if this creates new files, offering minimal usage direction.

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