shared_memory_set

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It does state that the operation is a store (state-changing) and that the data lands in shared memory, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, persistence, or limits. The main gap is whether setting an existing key replaces the old 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information with no filler. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple set operation with two self-explanatory string parameters, the description is nearly complete even without an output schema or annotations. The only notable omission is the overwrite behavior for an already-existing key.

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%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the parameter names themselves. It does not explain key naming conventions, value size, or encoding, leaving the two simple string parameters without semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') with an explicit resource ('a key/value pair in shared memory') and immediately distinguishes the tool's scope by noting the memory is visible to both Codex and Claude. This separates it from siblings like shared_memory_get and shared_memory_list.

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 phrase 'visible to both Codex and Claude' clearly identifies the intended use case: cross-agent shared state. It provides clear context for choosing this tool over more local memory variants, though it does not enumerate exclusions or name alternatives explicitly.

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