sassy_state_set

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

The description discloses persistence across restarts, overwrite behavior, verbatim string storage without JSON encoding, and the confirmation return value. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations, which already indicate mutation and idempotence. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, front-loading the core mutation behavior and storage location before parameter details and usage guidance. The one-word 'Mutating.' opener is an efficient behavioral cue.

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 three parameters, all are explained, the output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and idempotence, the description leaves no important gap for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: tool_name namespaces the entry, key is the storage key, and value is stored verbatim with guidance about passing encoded JSON. Every required parameter receives meaningful semantic detail.

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 and resource: 'Persists a value into the per-tool SQLite state store,' naming the exact file and location. It is clearly distinct from siblings like sassy_state_get and sassy_state_clear.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'checkpoint progress, save cursors, or persist preferences between sessions.' It also names related tools for reading and deleting, and warns that it is 'Not a substitute for the memory system,' giving clear selection guidance.

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