put_automation_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Write an automation state entry' without detailing side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on repeated writes. This is insufficient for safe tool selection.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to read. 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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what an 'automation state entry' is, how it is identified, or what the tool actually accomplishes in the broader context of automation states. Sibling tools exist for retrieving and deleting states, so additional context is necessary for complete understanding.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, zero parameters have a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter information because none exist, but it also does not explain how the state is determined (e.g., from context). Still, the score is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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 'Write an automation state entry' clearly specifies a verb and resource, indicating a write operation on an automation state. However, it does not distinguish between creating and updating, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'claim_automation_state' or 'get_automation_state'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'claim_automation_state', 'get_automation_state', and 'delete_automation_state', the description fails to explain the distinct use case for 'put_automation_state'.

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