memory_world_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the supersession model ('A newer source supersedes an older value at the same slot'), telling the agent what happens to a prior value on a conflicting write.

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 and keeps the description compact. The 'Returns:' sentence is redundant because an output schema already exists, but the waste is minor and the overall structure is 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description still covers the domain distinction, the routing condition, and the supersession behavior, making it adequate for a 9-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters (including confidence semantics, URL scheme rejection, and freshness_class decay). The description adds only the vague phrase 'with the citation', which does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Assert a canonical WORLD fact') and enumerates the domain (versions, prices, who-holds-a-role, research findings). It scopes itself apart from user/project facts, but does not name the sibling (e.g. memory_fact_set) that handles those, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 a clear positive trigger ('Route verified web/docs findings here, with the citation') and implies the complement by keeping world facts separate from user/project facts. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition, leaving the routing rule partly to inference.

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