obs-set-persistent-data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Sets' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this requires special permissions, if changes are permanent or reversible, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Sets'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of modifying persistent data in OBS, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'realm' (specifying allowed values) and 'slotName'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a 'slot' represents or constraints on 'slotValue'. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Sets') and target ('value of a slot from the selected persistent data realm'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'obs-get-persistent-data' beyond the verb, missing explicit contrast like 'use this to write data vs. obs-get-persistent-data to read data'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), compare to sibling tools like 'obs-get-persistent-data' for reading data, or specify scenarios where setting persistent data is appropriate (e.g., configuration storage).

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