mureo_strategy_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: atomic replacement, parsing via parse_strategy() to ensure well-formedness, and raising an error for malformed input. It could mention more about return values or scope (e.g., STATE.json), but overall it's transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and then explaining validation and use case. Every sentence is valuable and there is no unnecessary text.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the effect (atomic replacement) and includes validation and use case. It could explicitly mention the expected return or success confirmation, but it is still fairly complete.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions are identical. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.

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 replace STRATEGY.md with provided markdown. It specifies the verb 'replace', the resource 'STRATEGY.md', and includes details about parsing and validation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'mureo_strategy_get' by being the only set tool for strategy.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to update goals, constraints, or operation mode from a chat-only host.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. However, the intent is clear.

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