memoryguard_memory_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the auto-organize pipeline (classify, dedup, supersede, conflict, quarantine) and the return contract (memory_id and auto_actions). "Supersede" and "quarantine" honestly hint that existing memories can be affected, though it stops short of clarifying whether dedup/supersede can alter or destroy existing records.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded first, followed by side-effect disclosure and the return contract. Every clause earns its place, and the auto-organize list is compact and scannable.

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 complex 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the auto-organize side effects, and a minimal return contract. Gaps remain: no mention of write_policy's propose_only non-destructive mode, no explicit warning that auto-organize can affect existing memories, and no routing guidance toward memory_update for existing-record edits.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters with meaningful per-field descriptions. The description itself mentions no parameters and adds no semantics beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Write a new memory record" uses a specific verb, a specific resource, and the "new" qualifier, clearly marking this as the creation operation. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like memory_update, memory_delete, memory_read, and memory_search. The auto-organize pipeline detail further differentiates it from a plain append.

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 "new" qualifier implies this is for creating records rather than modifying existing ones (memory_update) or retrieving them (memory_read/memory_search). However, the description never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use conditions. Usage guidance is left to inference from the verb and resource rather than explicitly routed.

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