memory_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals the double-gating requirement ('MSFS_ENABLE_MEMORY=true AND allow_write=true'), which indicates safety-critical behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as crashing the sim or corrupting memory, nor the return value.

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 sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential gating context, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description lacks critical safety context for a memory-write operation. It does not address error handling (e.g., invalid addresses), parameter constraints, or what the output represents. The gating condition is useful but insufficient for safe usage.

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% (low), so the description must compensate. It adds no explanation for the parameters 'value', 'type_name', 'address_hex', or 'allow_write'. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which are somewhat descriptive but insufficient for precise usage (e.g., valid types for 'type_name').

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 'Write to an absolute address', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'memory_read' and 'fsuipc_write_offset' by specifying it writes to absolute addresses rather than FSUIPC offsets or other memory regions.

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 vs alternatives like 'fsuipc_write_offset' or 'memory_write' vs 'memory_read'. The description only mentions gating conditions but does not explain scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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