Update the workspace memory

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive); the description adds real behavior: a confirmation step ('Asks the user first'), a total size ceiling (20 KB), and the side effect that a section heading is created if missing. Content rules ('write rules the user stated, never secrets') further constrain what may be written. It omits what happens on size overflow or how section replacement handles existing content.

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?

A single tight paragraph that front-loads the two modes, then constraints. Every clause adds information; the only cost is that the size limit and confirmation step are packed into the same sentence flow rather than separated.

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?

No output schema and thin annotations, so the description must supply behavior, and it covers modes, side effects, confirmation, size, and content rules. Gaps remain around failure/overflow behavior and the mismatch between the 20 KB claim and the 8000-character parameter bound.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does: it explains what each mode value does and that 'section' is a heading created when absent. It does not reconcile the stated 20 KB limit with the schema's 8000-character maxLength on 'text', leaving the effective limit ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds to the workspace memory' / 'replaces one section') and enumerates both operating modes by name, so an agent can distinguish this write operation from read_memory or update_profile without opening the schema.

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?

Names the two modes and the condition selecting each ('mode append' vs 'mode replace_section'), which is effectively when-to-use guidance for the core branch point. It does not state when memory should not be written at all beyond the 'never secrets' rule, so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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