memory_write

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two genuine behavioral traits: credential content is refused outright, and durability/verification semantics are explicit. It omits whether writes are idempotent, how duplicate titles are handled, whether entries are mutable later, and what the call returns.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the scope list is presented compactly. The remaining two sentences are short and purposeful, though the scope enumeration sits mid-paragraph rather than immediately adjacent to an explanation of how scope affects behavior.

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?

This is a 9-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, so the description is the only documentation an agent has. It covers scope and the credential/verification policy but leaves type, tags, source, project, and confidence unexplained, and says nothing about what happens on success or how to know the write landed.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does. It meaningfully defines the legal values for scope (project | workflow | capability | user | knowledge | research), which the schema does not, and clarifies verified's intended meaning, but type, tags, source, project, confidence, title, and content get no guidance at all.

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?

"Store one durable memory" states a specific verb and resource, and the scope enumeration clarifies the breadth of what can be stored. It does not differentiate from siblings like memory_note or memory_search, so the agent must infer the boundary between durable memory and a note on its own.

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 gives constraint-style guidance (never store secrets, only set verified=True when actually verified) but never says when to use this tool versus memory_note, memory_list, or memory_search. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions, leaving the agent to guess the intended tool among closely related siblings.

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