Update Decision State

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like side effects or permissions. It only states the core action (apply patch) without explaining outcomes (e.g., success/failure, idempotency, or whether the update is immediate). The schema clarifies array replacement, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description omits crucial details such as return value, error scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., existence of state.json). Sibling tools like get_state imply state exists, but the description should clarify whether the update is transactional or the expected response.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already describes the patch as a JSON merge patch with array replacement and the reason as a short string. The description adds 'record why' but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for rich 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 clearly states the tool's action: applying a JSON merge patch and recording the reason. It specifies the resource (state.json) and the verb (apply), distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_state or decision-related tools like record_decision.

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 for updating state, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_state or record_decision. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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