memory_world_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the key non-obvious behavior that a newer source supersedes an older value at the same slot, which explains the non-idempotent, overwriting nature. It does not discuss auth requirements or what happens to the superseded record beyond the return action label.

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 tight sentences plus a short return line, with the core scope statement front-loaded before the routing guidance. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 9-parameter mutation tool the description covers purpose, routing, slot/supersede semantics and return actions; the 'Returns' line is technically redundant given the output schema but harmless. It leaves the destructive overwrite implication slightly implicit rather than stating plainly that an existing value is replaced.

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 entity, attribute, value, confidence, source_url and freshness_class are all already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the citation requirement and slot semantics, adding little beyond what the structured fields provide; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Assert a canonical WORLD fact') and immediately scopes it to externally sourced knowledge, listing concrete examples (versions, prices, role holders, research findings). It explicitly contrasts with user/project facts, so an agent can distinguish it from memory_fact_set without opening either 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?

'Route verified web/docs findings here, with the citation' gives a clear inclusion criterion, and the separation from user/project facts implicitly routes other assertions to the fact tools. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. unverified or purely user-stated claims).

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