state_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the mutation is audited, which is valuable. However, it doesn't clarify whether writes are synchronous, whether they overwrite existing keys, whether there are size limits, or what happens on failure—important for a state-writing 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, focused sentence, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it doesn't waste space with restatements of the schema.

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?

Given a write tool with no annotations and a sparse schema, the description leaves critical gaps: overwrite behavior, audit specifics, error handling, and how this relates to state_get for round-trip correctness. The output schema is noted but not described, so agents still can't anticipate the return shape.

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 must compensate. It only mentions 'namespaced value' generically, providing no added meaning for 'namespace', 'key', or 'value'. The description doesn't explain value types, key constraints, or namespace semantics beyond what the field names already imply.

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 ('Write') and resource ('namespaced value to shared local state'), and mentions auditing the mutation, which distinguishes it from a plain put operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like state_get or orchestrate, making the differentiation less direct.

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 implies usage: it's for writing to shared state, and siblings like state_get clearly handle reading. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like namespace existence or whether overwriting is allowed.

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