set_initial_state

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description should carry the behavioral burden for a mutation. It does not say what happens to the previously designated initial state (replacement vs. accumulation), whether the operation requires the machine to be unstarted, or what the expectedRevision parameter implies for conflict handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined density.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the definition leaves concurrency semantics (expectedRevision) and the fate of the prior initial state unexplained. The core action is clear, but an agent could call it correctly only by guessing at the optional parameters.

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 40%: smId and stateId are documented in the schema, while requestId, sessionId and expectedRevision are bare. The description mirrors only the two already-documented required parameters and adds no meaning to the concurrency or session parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (Set) and a precise resource attribute (the starting state of a state machine), which is distinct from siblings like add_sm_state or add_sm_transition. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus add_sm_state, or on preconditions such as whether the state must already exist or whether a machine must be transition-free. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.

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