memory_set_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety and side-effect burden. It discloses the one-way scalar-to-set conversion, the protection of number-led scalars, and the 'contested' outcome with resolution path. It also states the exact return shape.

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?

Four compact sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information: operation, conversion caveat, read route, and return shape.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it still gives the return shape. It covers when to use, edge cases, resolution steps, and a read alternative. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke the tool safely.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the set-slot concept, conversion behavior, and what happens to protected scalar members. It does not add much per-field format detail, but it clarifies how `member` may be interpreted.

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 operation: 'Add/confirm a member of a set-valued slot', and explicitly contrasts with scalar 'NOW value'. This distinguishes the tool from related memory tools such as memory_store and memory_set_remove. The edge-case behavior for number-led scalars adds clarity without ambiguity.

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?

Tells agents when it applies: set-valued slots with 'many concurrent values', and says it is not for 'one NOW value'. It names alternatives explicitly: read via memory_fact_get and settle contested adds via memory_fact_resolve. This is enough to route an agent to the correct sibling.

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