Write integers to memory

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say memory is overwritten, whether the write is reversible/undoable, that it requires a loaded database, or how failures are reported. For a destructive mutation tool the description contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a simple write tool. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight curation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, for a destructive batch-write tool the description omits the batch nature of items and the instance_id target semantics, leaving moderate gaps.

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 100%, and the nested items schema fully documents ty, addr, and value including hex/negative syntax, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates 'integer values to memory addresses' without adding format or batch semantics beyond what is already structured.

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?

States a specific verb (Write) and resource (integer values to memory addresses), so the agent can tell it performs a memory mutation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the read counterpart get_int or from patch/get_bytes, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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 on when to use this versus get_int, patch, get_bytes, or get_string, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer the write use case purely from the verb.

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