hb_state_mem_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'Store' – nothing about whether an existing key is overwritten, whether this requires provenance (the agent_id param hints at it), idempotency, or return behavior. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs more.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than concise – the terseness leaves obvious gaps for a mutating, four-parameter tool.

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?

A mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema demands explanation of overwrite behavior, provenance, and the fact/lesson distinction, none of which is present. The definition is incomplete for its complexity.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema (key, type enum, value, agent_id). The description adds no syntax, format, or provenance semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 verb ('Store') and resource ('state memory entry'), but the phrasing is nearly a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish it from siblings like hb_mem_store or hb_state_mem_get. It conveys the basic action but nothing about scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus hb_mem_store (general memory) or hb_state_mem_get (retrieval). The sibling namespace makes routing ambiguous, and the description offers no help resolving it.

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