working_memory_set

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses transient nature, automatic expiration, overwrite behavior, and scoping to project. Could mention what happens on missing project_path or other error conditions, but defaults are covered in schema. Overall transparent for a non-destructive write operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place. Front-loaded with core purpose, then caveats and guidance. No fluff.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter behavior well. It does not describe the return value, but as a write operation this is acceptable. Could add note about successful acknowledgment, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter in context: key as unique name, value as any string including JSON, ttl_seconds with default, project_path with default to current directory. This contextual enrichment justifies a score above baseline.

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?

Clearly states it stores a transient key-value entry scoped to the current project, with explicit mention of expiration, overwriting behavior, and use cases. Distinguishes from sibling tool update_state by noting it avoids polluting long-term 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (debug flags, temporary task context) and when not to use (data that must survive session restart, recommending update_state instead). Also notes that it overwrites existing entries without error.

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