memory_set_add

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

Annotations declare the safe-write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds substantial beyond-that context: the one-way scalar-to-set conversion on first call, the protected number-led scalars, and the action='contested' parking behavior. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure the annotations cannot express.

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 and scope, and the returns block is short. The parentheticals ('32', '$1,500') and em-dash clauses make it dense but every sentence carries information, so it stays efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them. Conversion semantics, the contested path, and read alternatives are all covered; only explicit permission/auth prerequisites are absent for a non-destructive mutation.

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 entity/attribute/member are already documented, and the description adds little per-parameter meaning. It clarifies that a 'member' is added or re-confirmed into a set, but the baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb ('Add/confirm a member') and resource ('set-valued slot'), and immediately scopes it against the scalar case ('many concurrent values, not one NOW value'). An agent can tell it apart from memory_fact_set and memory_set_remove without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (sets rather than scalar NOW values) and routes the contested case to memory_fact_resolve and reads to memory_fact_get. It does not spell out when NOT to use the tool versus other mutators, but the set/scalar distinction effectively covers the decision.

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