Set Persistent Data

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations — it says it sets a value, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or any special behaviors. However, the descriptions aligns with annotations, so no contradiction. The bar is lower due to annotations, but the description still doesn't add much behavioral detail.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the verb. It is suitably sized for a simple slot-setting operation. 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 that the tool has 3 simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any note on how the 'persistent data realm' works, or any caveats. For a simple setter, this might be sufficient, but it could be improved by explaining what the slot is used for.

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 adds little beyond the schema, but it does relate 'the value of a slot' to the slotName and slotValue parameters, providing slight context. However, it doesn't clarify the meaning of 'realm' beyond the schema's enum-like description. Overall, the description adds marginal value.

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 the verb 'Sets' and the resource 'slot' from 'persistent data realm', but it is vague about what the slot represents or what 'persistent data' is. It partially distinguishes from the sibling tool 'obs-get-persistent-data' (which gets data instead of sets), but could be clearer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It might be obvious that 'obs-get-persistent-data' retrieves data while this sets it, but the description provides no explicit context for usage, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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