mureo_strategy_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses atomic replacement, parsing via parse_strategy() to ensure well-formedness, and that malformed input raises rather than corrupts the file, providing strong behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each clause adds value: what it does, validation, error behavior, and use case.

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 write tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: operation, validation, error handling, and typical use case. It lacks return-value details but that is not critical for invocation.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds meaning by requiring markdown to be parseable by parse_strategy() and explaining the atomic replacement behavior. This goes beyond the schema's basic param descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'replace' with the resource 'STRATEGY.md', clearly stating the operation. It distinctively positions itself as the write counterpart to sibling 'mureo_strategy_get'.

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?

It says 'Use this to update goals, constraints, or operation mode from a chat-only host', providing clear context for when to use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the read/write distinction obvious.

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