context_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Set a context value'. It does not mention overwrite behavior, scoping by session, expiration, or any side effects, which are crucial for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and purpose. Every word contributes value, making it appropriately sized for a tool with this simplicity.

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 5-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent. It does not explain the return value, overwrite semantics, expiration behavior, or how this tool differs from memory_write, leaving significant gaps for a state-setting operation.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. However, the description adds no semantic context beyond the schema, such as how 'cross-skill state sharing' relates to session_id or skill_name, leaving the baseline score of 3 unchanged.

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 the explicit verb 'Set' and identifies the resource as 'context value' with a purpose ('cross-skill state sharing'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like context_get, context_clear, and context_share. This provides a specific action and scope.

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 implies usage for cross-skill state sharing, which suggests when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as memory_write or context_share. There is no exclusion or comparative guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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