update_state

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: each section passed is replaced in full, previous versions are retained, and the call returns consistency warnings such as a section naming a superseded decision. Those replace-vs-merge and warning semantics are exactly what an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its scope, and every sentence carries information (sections, replacement rule, trigger, sibling boundary, return warnings). The parenthetical section enumeration makes it run long and is partly redundant with the schema enum.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-warning mention is a bonus rather than a burden. For a 4-parameter mutation tool the description covers the core mental model, but leaves how tasks are matched/created and what refs do to the schema alone, which is only thinly documented.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description should carry more. It adds real meaning about section replacement, but the `refs` field (linking sections to knowledge entry ids), the `tasks` array semantics, and `session_label` go unexplained in both places, and the section-name list largely repeats the schema enum.

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?

States a specific verb (update) plus the exact resource (the project's Live State), and enumerates the concrete sections it governs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the `remember` sibling by declaring it never touches Project Knowledge.

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?

"Call it whenever what is done / in progress / broken changes" gives an explicit trigger condition, and "use remember for decisions and their reasons" names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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