set_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Write' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether values are merged or overwritten, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Single concise sentence of 13 words that directly states the tool's purpose. No redundant information.

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 set operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks context on behavior (merge vs overwrite), error scenarios, or requirements for store existence, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no further semantics beyond 'Write a value to a Zustand store at the given path', which does not clarify parameter constraints or formatting beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Write', the resource 'Zustand store', and the mechanism 'at the given path'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_state (read) and call_action (invoke) by explicitly indicating a write operation.

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 implies usage for setting state values, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no when-not conditions. The context from sibling names helps, but the tool definition does not provide direct guidance.

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