write_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence across sessions, cost ($0.001 USDC), and service (memex), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on updates, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The cost and service details are relevant but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It misses parameter explanations, behavioral details like side effects, and return values, making it incomplete for effective use.

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. It does not explain any parameters (agent_id, key, value, tags, ttl_seconds), their meanings, formats, or constraints. This leaves all 5 parameters undocumented beyond their schema types.

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 action ('Write or update') and resource ('persistent memory for an agent'), specifying it survives across sessions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_memory' or 'search_memory', which would require mentioning it's for writing rather than reading/searching.

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 alternatives such as 'read_memory' or 'search_memory'. The description includes cost and service details, but these do not help in tool selection or contextual usage.

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