workspace_put_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. "Publish" implies a write, but the description never says whether this replaces existing context wholesale, whether it is idempotent, who may publish, or what happens to concurrent readers — all material for a tool described as state "every agent reads first".

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly the cause of the missing semantics rather than a virtue in itself.

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 required two-parameter write tool with a free-form nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent knows roughly what to do but not the shape of the payload, the overwrite behavior, or the identity semantics of "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 description coverage is 0% and the context parameter is an untyped nested object, so the description must compensate. It only hints that "context" is project state; it says nothing about what "agent" identifies (name, id, role) or what fields the context object should contain.

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?

States a specific verb ("Publish") and resource ("shared context object"), and the parenthetical clarifies that this is the project-state document every agent reads, which distinguishes it from the sibling workspace_get_context (the read side) and from workspace_put_file.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: publishing project state that other agents read first suggests a write to a shared, widely-read slot. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus workspace_put_file or workspace_update_capsule, and no mention of overwrite/replace semantics or coordination with workspace_get_context.

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