write_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or what happens on update (e.g., partial vs full replacement). This is insufficient 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 concise (one sentence) but sacrifices necessary detail. It captures the essence but leaves the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 complexity (nested object, optional update_id, and output schema not shown), the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on how to construct the record input and how updates work, making it incomplete for reliable usage.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It does not clarify what fields the 'record' object should contain, nor the purpose of 'update_id' (e.g., to specify which record to update).

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 'Create or update' and the resource 'Markdown memory record', distinguishing it from siblings like read_memory, search_memory, etc.

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 implies the tool is for writing memory records but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, or when to create vs update. The update_id parameter hints at update logic, but it's not explained.

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