memory_set_add

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the one-way scalar-to-set conversion, the special protection for number-led scalars, and the contested/contender outcome — non-obvious side effects an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of describing rate limits or 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-loads the core purpose, then the scalar-conversion edge case, then the routing hints and return shape. It is dense and jargon-heavy ("parks as a contender"), but every clause carries behavioral information that is not available elsewhere, so little is wasted.

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 the trailing returns line is largely redundant, but the description covers the operation's key nuance (set semantics, one-way conversion, contested outcome) for a genuinely non-trivial memory tool. It could be more complete about the relationship to memory_set_remove or when to prefer the scalar slot 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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the slot is set-valued (contextualizing entity/attribute) and that a member can be re-confirmed rather than only inserted. The schema itself only offers terse labels ("The slot's subject"), so this framing is genuinely additive.

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+resource (add/confirm a member of a set-valued slot) and immediately disambiguates it from scalar single-value semantics ("many concurrent values, not one NOW value"). It also names the sibling read tool (memory_fact_get) and the resolution tool (memory_fact_resolve), so an agent can place it in the family without opening other schemas.

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?

Clearly signals when this tool applies: set-valued slots with many concurrent members. It routes contested adds to memory_fact_resolve and reads to memory_fact_get. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., the scalar alternative memory_fact_set), which keeps it short of a full 5.

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