memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one behavioral detail: 'returns maintenanceRequest when deeper governance is due.' However, it does not disclose other important traits such as whether writes are destructive, duplicate handling, permission requirements, or side effects beyond writing. The write nature is implied but insufficiently detailed for a tool with 27 parameters.

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 sentence with a colon and a list, making it efficient and front-loaded. It packs multiple action types into a compact statement without wasted words. However, it is slightly dense and could be structured with clearer separations, but it remains concise overall.

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 is highly complex: 27 parameters, 5 enum actions, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only some actions (e.g., remember, commit, append, distill) but misses task_delete, does not explain return values beyond the vague maintenanceRequest, and lacks details on the structure of entries or durableMemories. These gaps make the description inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It provides high-level mappings for actions (remember, commit, append, distill) but gives no details on parameters like cwd, role, source, status, taskId, entries, or durableMemories. Without these, the agent cannot correctly map inputs to their intended purposes, especially given the presence of nested objects.

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 verb 'Write memory' and enumerates specific actions: remember, commit, append task entry, and distill context/experience. This makes the primary function clear and somewhat distinguishes it from memory_recall (reading) and memory_organize/govern. However, it omits the 'task_delete' action present in the schema and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_recall, memory_organize, or memory_govern. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it is the appropriate choice. The note about returning a maintenanceRequest when governance is due hints at a relationship to governance but does not constitute explicit usage guidance.

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