memory_set_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so: it discloses one-way scalar-to-set conversion, protection for number-led scalars, and the contested action state. It also names the settle path (memory_fact_resolve), adding value beyond schema.

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 text is compact and front-loaded; the first sentence states purpose and key characteristic, and the second paragraph provides the return signature. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema and no annotations, but the description covers behavioral traits, edge cases, and related tools. It includes the return object shape and gives enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 0% and params are just strings; the description explains 'member' in relation to set-valued slots, 'entity/attribute' context is implicit, and it distinguishes normal members from contested numerical ones. It would benefit from explicit formats for entity and attribute, but it compensates adequately for a 3-param tool.

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 ('Add/confirm') and identifies the resource ('set-valued slot'), clarifying that it is not for scalar NOW values. It also distinguishes from sibling memory_set_remove and memory_fact_get by mentioning read and resolve alternatives.

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 states the tool is for set-valued slots with many concurrent values, and explicitly directs readers to memory_fact_get for reading and memory_fact_resolve for contested settlements. It also warns about scalar conversion and number-led exceptions, giving clear when-to-use context.

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