state_inject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'change' a substance but does not explain side effects, reversibility, whether this is destructive, or what state mutation consequences occur. The description adds very little beyond the name for a mutating 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing no filler. It earns its place by giving the operative concept and a routing hint to the sibling, all with maximum economy.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide much more context. It tells the agent when to use it but leaves the meaning of amount/context and the behavioral effects completely open, so an agent cannot reliably call it correctly without additional reasoning.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameter meanings. It vaguely implies hormone and amount are related to changing a messenger substance, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'amount' (absolute value, delta, units), the role of the optional 'context', or how the list of hormones maps to the operation. This gap is significant.

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, though German, gives a specific verb 'verändern' (change) and a specific resource 'einzelnen Botenstoff' (single messenger substance), and distinguishes itself from the sibling state_event by framing itself as 'Feinsteuerung' (fine control). This is enough for an agent to know what the tool does and roughly how it differs from the siblings.

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 explicitly states that in normal cases state_event should be preferred, giving an alternative and a clear sense of when this tool is for special fine-grained adjustments. It could be more explicit about exact triggering conditions, but it does provide an exclusions and a named alternative.

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