memory_write

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that patch applies all-or-nothing edits and that replace overwrites the complete summary and body, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It also notes the base revision requirement, disclosing a concurrency constraint. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 highly concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail key distinctions. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler 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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 distinct actions, destructive behavior), the description covers the core actions and a key constraint but leaves out several parameters (title, project, memory_id) and does not explicitly state create-specific requirements. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description could still go further in explaining the full parameter set.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden. It explains 'summary' (stable one-line description), clarifies the actions (patch, replace) and their effects on 'body' and 'edits', and mentions 'base_revision' as a requirement. However, it does not explain 'title', 'project', or 'memory_id', leaving those parameters without any added meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 starts with 'Create or modify permanent memory,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (memory_read, memory_delete) by implying write operations. The mention of actions (create, patch, replace) further clarifies the scope.

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 provides some usage guidance by explaining the three actions and noting that existing memories require a current base revision. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over memory_read or memory_delete, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is implied but not fully explicit.

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