memory_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool stores a learning but does not mention important aspects like persistence, deduplication, size limits, or whether the storage is immediate. The description lacks depth about side effects or guarantees, leaving the agent uninformed about the behavior beyond the simple act of storage.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey purpose and usage. Every word serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but leaves gaps. It clearly states what to store and when, but does not mention what happens after storage, error conditions, or any constraints. For a write operation, knowing if it is idempotent or if there are limits would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by explaining what kind of content should be stored (e.g., bug fixes, architectural decisions), but it does not significantly enhance the semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The tags parameter is already well-described in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Store a learning, decision, fix, or gotcha for this repository so other agents and teammates can find it later.' It uses a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('learning'), and distinguishes itself from its sibling 'memory_query' by being the write operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to call the tool: 'Call this whenever you resolve a non-obvious bug, make an architectural decision, or discover something that would save someone time in the future.' This gives clear usage scenarios and implies that it is intended for valuable insights rather than routine updates.

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