mureo_state_settings_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default (off), the acceptance constraint (only `true`), the return behavior ("Returns the stored settings"), and the far-reaching side effect that enabling forces every change-making tool to carry `reason` and `expected`. It does not state permission requirements or behavior when called while already enabled, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then supplies the consequential side effect and the usage restriction, ending with return behavior. Slightly dense and run-on in the middle sentence, but every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 settings-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, systemic effect, constraints, and return value. It omits idempotency/error behavior when already enabled, but provides enough for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `path`, `reason`, and `ops_history_enabled` in full. The description reinforces the `true`-only constraint and ties it to the STATE.json path, but adds little beyond the structured schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: switching operations history on, targeting settings.ops_history.enabled in STATE.json, and notes it is off by default. It differentiates from the off-path by pointing to `mureo configure`, but does not explicitly contrast itself against its mureo_state_*_set siblings. Clear enough for selection, but not a full sibling disambiguation.

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 it ("only when the operator asks") and when not (switching off is rejected here and done by the operator via `mureo configure`). The alternative mechanism for the opposite action is named, so the agent has no ambiguity about routing.

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