whim_context_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does disclose that writes persist across sessions, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits other important behaviors like overwrite semantics on an existing key, any synchronization effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps for an agent deciding to invoke a 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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action; the second justifies existence with the persistence angle. Every word 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?

For a 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. However, given the crowded sibling space (facts, snippets, RAG search all similar stores), and no annotation fallback, some guidance on behavior on overwrite or relationship to sibling stores would round out completeness. Not inadequate, but with clear room to grow.

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%, with every parameter (key, text, namespace) documented inline. Per the rubric, high coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description's mention of a "named context slot" reinforces the key parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

"Store text in a named context slot" is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly explains the operation. The set/get/list/delete CRUD family among siblings is naturally distinguished, though the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from other persistent stores like whim_facts_save or whim_snippet_save.

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?

"Use for persistent memory that survives across agent sessions" gives clear context on when to use the tool. However, with 12 siblings including whim_facts_save and whim_snippet_save that also persist data, the description offers no alternatives, exclusions, or disambiguation about when to pick context over facts or snippets.

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