memory_assert

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

With no annotations at all, the description bears full behavioral burden and does not carry it: it never says whether duplicates are deduplicated, whether an assert on an existing fact overwrites or errors, whether it is idempotent, or what provenance means operationally. Only the return value is disclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the return value; nothing is padded. The terseness is efficient, though it reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema covers the return value, but for a mutation tool with three 0%-documented parameters and zero annotations, the description omits too much: write behavior, idempotency, namespace semantics, and relationship to the correct/retract siblings are all missing.

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 0%, so all three parameters (fact, source, namespace) are undocumented in the schema. The description hints that "provenance" maps to source, but never explains the fact format or what namespace scopes or defaults to, leaving the caller to guess.

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?

"Store a fact with provenance" gives a specific verb and resource, and "Returns the fact id" sets expectations. It implicitly separates the tool from memory_search and memory_retract, but never names a sibling or states the write semantics explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to assert versus when to use memory_correct or memory_retract, and no mention of preconditions or ordering (e.g. search first to avoid duplicates). The agent must infer all routing from the tool names.

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