memory_slot_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: empty content clears the slot, missing/read-only slots and oversized content fail without replacement, project slots shadow global slots, and an audit entry is recorded. This is unusually complete disclosure of side effects and failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then failure modes, then alternatives; every sentence adds information. It is dense rather than wasteful, though the packed semicolon clause asks the reader to parse several facts at once.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({success,slot,size}), the failure conditions, the precedence rule, and the audit side effect, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: content is a full replacement (not a merge) and empty content is a clearing signal, and label resolution has a project-over-global precedence rule.

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 precise verb and resource ('Replace the complete content of an existing effective slot') and immediately scopes it ('existing', 'effective'), which cleanly separates it from memory_slot_create and memory_slot_append named later.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use memory_slot_append to add text or memory_slot_create for a new label.' The precondition (slot must already exist and not be read-only) is also stated, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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