memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral clues. It indicates that memories are 'persisted for future sessions,' implying durability. However, it lacks details on whether writes are append-only or overwriting, authorization requirements, size limits, or return values. This leaves room for ambiguity.

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 concise, starting with the core purpose and then detailing parameters. The Args list improves readability. Every sentence is informative, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message, memory ID). It also lacks comparison to global_memory_write, which shares similar purpose but with broader scope. The description is adequate for basic use but misses context that would help the agent choose between siblings.

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 description fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing an explicit Args section that explains each parameter: 'text' required, 'memory_type' with valid options (summary, decision, next-steps, code-pattern, note, default), and 'tags' as comma-separated. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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: 'Write a memory entry to the current project's memory store.' It specifies the action (write), the resource (memory entry), and scope (current project). This distinguishes it from siblings like global_memory_write, though not explicitly. The examples of memory types further clarify the domain.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to save important context, decisions, code patterns, or next-steps that should be persisted for future sessions.' This guides the agent on appropriate usage, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternatives like global_memory_write.

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