memory_set_normative

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does indicate a write operation ('Set') and that the block is 'soft defaults, evolvable', but it does not state whether the existing block is overwritten, whether the change persists, or what downstream effects occur. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical is reasonably compact. But the brevity sacrifices definitional clarity, so it is not a perfect model.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, so the description must supply almost all context. It does not explain what a 'normative policy block' is, what values it accepts, or how it relates to the sibling memory tools. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description needs to explain the two string parameters. It does not explain what agent_id refers to, what format normative should take, or how the 'normative policy block' maps to the normative parameter. The description adds no real parameter meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Set the normative policy block.' The parenthetical ('soft defaults, evolvable') adds a bit of semantic context, and the resource distinguishes it from load/save/get siblings. However, 'normative policy block' remains jargon-heavy and is not defined, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_save, memory_apply_persona, or memory_apply_summary. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The only clue is the tool name, not actual usage guidance.

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