Set Entry State

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

Annotations already disclose mutation (readOnlyHint false), destructiveness (destructiveHint true), idempotence (idempotentHint true). The description adds the key behavioral guarantee 'never toggles blindly,' clarifying that values are set deterministically. This goes beyond the structured metadata, though it doesn't elaborate on the confirm parameter or specific destructive 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, no filler. The key caveat ('never toggles blindly') is packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with destructive hints, the description plus annotations give a solid overview, but the confirm parameter's necessity/behavior is undocumented and there's no mention of return values or failure modes. This is a minor gap; the tool's core operation is clear enough for an AI to use it correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'state' parameter by listing its valid values (archived, markedAsComplete, pinned), which is valuable. However, it leaves 'value' and especially 'confirm' unexplained; 'confirm' likely gates destructive actions but the description doesn't say. Partial compensation 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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with explicit resource ('entry state') and enumerates the exact fields (archived, markedAsComplete, pinned). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like bundled_set_bundle_archived and bundled_update_entry by emphasizing 'explicitly' rather than toggling.

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 conveys when to use this tool (when you want to explicitly set one of three states) and implicitly warns against blind toggling. However, it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it (e.g., for other entry fields, prefer bundled_update_entry), stopping short of a full 5.

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