memory_fact_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that new values supersede old ones with history kept, that conflicting writes park as contenders with action='contested', that authority and distortion_tolerance inherit slot labels unless restated, and it states the return shape. This goes well beyond a simple mutation one-liner.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two short behavior paragraphs and a return line. Every sentence carries distinct information; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral edge cases (supersede vs contest), the resolution path, and the return enum. It could be slightly more explicit about what triggers a 'contested' classification (e.g., conflicting values on the same slot), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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. The description adds extra meaning to authority and distortion_tolerance by explaining the inheritance behavior, and it clarifies the semantic of 'value' as the canonical NOW. Other parameters are already well-described in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assert a canonical fact — insert, confirm, or correct a slot.' It clearly defines the operation and its three modes, and distinguishes itself from the related resolver by naming memory_fact_resolve as the settlement path for contested writes.

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?

It provides a clear context for use — asserting or correcting a canonical slot — and gives an explicit alternative when a write comes back contested: 'check with the human, settle via memory_fact_resolve.' It does not, however, state when to prefer this over nearby siblings like memory_store, memory_supersede, or memory_set_add, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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