force_set_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key traits: 'Unconditionally' indicates no version check, 'Always succeeds' signals reliability. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could also mention overwriting side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, followed by concise usage guidance, making every word earn 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?

For a simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral traits, and usage. The 'unconditionally' implication covers overwriting, though explicit mention of potential data loss would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already fully documents key and value, including value format requirement.

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?

Description states 'Unconditionally write a checkpoint value,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with set_state for concurrent writers, making its unique role clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Prefer for single-writer workflows' and when not to: 'For concurrent writers, use set_state with expected_version.' This provides clear alternatives and exclusions.

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