memory_write

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds no context about side effects such as entry persistence, compaction implications, pinning behavior, or retraction linkage. The single sentence does not extend beyond the basic write action.

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, concise sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy to parse, though its brevity is a double-edged sword.

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?

The tool has a complex schema, multiple related memory operations, and significant behavioral nuances (e.g., priority auto-pinning, retraction). The description offers almost no context about these behaviors or how they affect the agent's decision to use this tool, making it incomplete for the complexity involved.

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 tool description only highlights agent_name, while the required parameters memory_type, title, and content are not mentioned at all. Although the nested schema contains descriptions for these fields, the top-level parameter coverage is 0%, and the description does little to compensate by summarizing the expected input format.

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 'Write' with a clear resource 'memory entry' and adds the distinctive 'stamped with your agent_name' detail. This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like memory_read, memory_search, and memory_compact.

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 memory_write versus alternative tools. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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