mureo_state_report_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomic persistence, best-effort behavior, and return of updated state. It also notes that other report kinds are preserved. However, it does not explicitly state whether an existing report of the same kind is overwritten or merged.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and covers purpose, parameters, behavioral notes, and return value without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter details, atomicity, best-effort, return value, and preservation of other reports. No missing critical information for an agent to use it correctly.

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 adds value by explaining the report enumeration, the conventional structure for summary (generated_at, period, kpis, flags, narrative), and the path semantics including default and restrictions. This exceeds the schema's description.

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 tool's purpose: to atomically persist a structured analysis report summary into STATE.json's reports section for rendering by the dashboard. It specifies the verb (persist), resource (STATE.json reports), and distinguishes from siblings like mureo_state_get or mureo_state_upsert_campaign by targeting the report kind.

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 provides clear context for use (dashboard rendering) and explicitly advises skipping if the MCP is unavailable. However, it does not directly compare to other state tools or specify when not to use it beyond the MCP availability condition.

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