memory_toolset

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses identity scoping ('scoped to your credential/writer identity'), cost and latency ('free, instant'), and the operational consequence of hidden tools ('clients reject hidden-tool calls'). It also specifies exactly which capability groups each tier unlocks.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the purpose and then add only high-value details: tier contents, status behavior, and expansion warning. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-action tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It defines the tier model, the three action semantics, identity scoping, and the operational warning about hidden-tool calls. An agent can decide to expand, collapse, or check status without needing further documentation.

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 schema has one enum parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining 'expand' (move up the ladder) and 'status' ('reports the ladder'). 'Collapse' is left to inference from 'one tier at a time' and the minimal→core→full ordering, but the word and direction make it sufficiently clear.

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 the exact verb and resource: 'Adjust YOUR visible toolset, one tier at a time.' It enumerates tier contents and actions, making clear this is a toolset-management tool, not a memory-content operation like any sibling memory_* or document_* tool. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition: 'Expand first: clients reject hidden-tool calls,' which tells the agent when to use this tool. It also explains that 'status reports the ladder' as a diagnostic use. It doesn't explicitly state when to collapse or name alternative tools, but no sibling tool is a substitute, so the context is clear.

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