de_tutor_write_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates memory, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response entails. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand 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 complexity as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to operate the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters ('concept' and 'known'). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('user's Data Engineering knowledge memory for a specific concept'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'de_tutor_read_memory' or 'de_tutor_get_updates', which likely have different functions (reading vs. writing).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools mentioned. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios for updating memory, or any exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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