mureo_state_workspace_not_collected_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it richly: it discloses side-effect scope ('Nothing else in the document is touched'), server-side stamping ('attempted_at is stamped by the server — do not compute it'), what is NOT updated ('last_synced_at is NOT re-stamped'), and the return shape ('Returns the updated state document'). It even explains the rationale for clearing notes promptly to avoid stale confidence.

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 long but every sentence earns its place — core action, sibling contrast, side-effect boundary, server stamping, clearing rule, and return value are all distinct and necessary. Bold text and backticks effectively emphasize the critical clear-on-success rule. It is slightly verbose relative to simpler tools, but the complexity of a set/clear dual-mode state tool justifies the length.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone, and it does: it covers set/clear semantics, the exact failure condition, sibling differentiation, the untouched-fields guarantee, server behavior, and the return value. No meaningful gap remains for an agent to safely select and invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already fully documents `reason` (actionable wording, truncation, omit/null/blank clears) and `path` (default and cwd restriction), and the description mostly reinforces rather than extends this. The only added parameter-adjacent info is that `attempted_at` is server-stamped, which is behavioral context rather than parameter semantics.

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 opening line states the exact action and resource: 'Record WHY THIS WHOLE WORKSPACE could not be collected — or CLEAR that note once a collection succeeds again.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mureo_state_platform_not_collected_set by scoping (workspace-wide vs single-platform) and by which keys are present, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly conditioned: 'Use this when the run failed BEFORE any platform was reached' and 'Use mureo_state_platform_not_collected_set instead when ONE platform failed and others were collected.' It also gives clear lifecycle guidance with 'do that on the very next successful collection,' making both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundaries explicit.

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