update_state

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: writes to state file of the current git branch if the project is a git repository, merges with existing state, and does not erase previous memory. This covers the main behavioral aspects but omits what happens in non-git projects or authorization needs.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, specifying the condition (git repo), and providing usage timing and behavior (merge, no erase). No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but lacks details on return values, error handling, or the case when project_path is missing. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about merging and not erasing, but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states 'Updates the project memory with decisions made this session', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like store_decision and get_state by indicating it writes to a state file and merges with existing state.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this at the END of every session', providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from similar tools like lesson_save.

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