update_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions a success message return, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or side effects. For a state-mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by categorized Arg and Return sections. Each sentence earns its place by defining the tool and its parameters. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the main description, but overall it's well-organized and concise.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: Success message'), the description is moderately complete. It covers all parameters semantically and states the return, but for a state-update tool, it should more explicitly address mutation behavior, idempotency, or error cases to be fully adequate.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the 'Args' section with clear semantic meaning (e.g., 'summary: A summary of what has been done so far'). It adds value beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 clearly states the action ('Update the context bus state') and specifies what is being updated ('with the current agent's information'). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_state' by being a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'toggle_tracking'. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_state' or 'toggle_tracking'. The description implies it's for updating state with agent information, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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