state_setup_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but 'Set up' only implies scaffolding without disclosing whether files are created, packages installed, existing code overwritten, or what the api_key is used for. The behavioral surface of a setup tool that takes an authentication credential is mostly hidden.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

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 4-parameter setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the setup produces, where it writes files, whether it modifies configurations, or how the api_key is consumed, leaving a substantial gap for correct invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains name, library, api_key, and typescript adequately.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Set up a state management store') and specifies the key deliverables: typed state, actions, and selectors. It is distinguishable from siblings like state_add_persistence by scope, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools such as state_generate_slices or state_add_persistence. It does not mention prerequisites, target project types, or any conditions that would make this tool preferable, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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