memory_set

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, idempotent write; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: credential-shaped keys/values are rejected, explicit user intent is mandatory, and the return value indicates created vs updated. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, rejection rule, intent requirement, and return value. There is no filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with six parameters, the schema is rich and the annotations cover safety/idempotency; the description fills the main remaining gap by stating the return behavior since there is no output schema. It could have mentioned TTL/tag/metadata behavior, but those are already fully documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3; the description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema. It mentions key, value, and explicit_user_intent only in passing, while tags, ttl_seconds, and metadata are left entirely to the schema.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create or update a key in memory.' It is specific enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling memory_set_batch or other memory tools.

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 a clear precondition: explicit_user_intent must be true, and the schema reinforces that it applies only when the user explicitly asks to modify memory. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool instead of memory_set_batch, but the intent requirement supplies clear usage context.

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