memory_world_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical side-effect that 'a newer source supersedes an older value at the same slot' and reveals the action vocabulary returned (inserted, confirmed, superseded, rejected). This is meaningful write-semantics disclosure beyond the schema, though it does not cover every edge case such as rejection triggers.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: what the tool is for, when to use it, what behavior to expect, and what it returns. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 tool with no annotations, the description provides the essential operating model: external world facts, separation from user facts, citation requirement, supersession behavior, and return shape. The output schema covers return details and the input schema covers parameter descriptions, so the remaining gap is mainly the lack of explicit alternative tool routing.

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 semantic glue: 'with the citation' reinforces the role of source_url/source_quote, and the supersede rule gives meaning to retrieved_at and freshness_class. It doesn't restate individual field descriptions, which is appropriate given the schema already documents them.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Assert a canonical WORLD fact' sourced from EXTERNAL knowledge. It also clearly scopes the tool to external/world facts as opposed to user/project facts, which differentiates it from sibling memory tools. The listing of example knowledge types (versions, prices, role-holders, research findings) makes the purpose concrete.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: route verified web/docs findings here, with a citation, for externally-sourced knowledge. It implicitly excludes user/project facts by saying this is 'kept separate' from them, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state a when-not-to-use rule.

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