karea_set_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: upsert by title, deletion via empty context, incremental update workflow. Also mentions session linking via toolType and aiSessionId parameters. Does not contradict any structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, then expands into detailed usage. Each sentence adds value, but length is substantial (~170 words). For a tool with complex semantics, the thoroughness is acceptable; minor deduction for not being tighter.

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 7 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the tool's role in the context system, when to use it, how to update incrementally, deletion behavior, and contrasts with siblings. No obvious gaps for an AI agent to invoke 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning beyond schema: explains that context tracks full history, describes the incremental update model, and clarifies the relationship between parameters (e.g., toolType required with aiSessionId). This extra context raises the score.

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 writes a titled entry to a task's Context, the AI-facing cross-session working memory. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Write a titled entry of the task's Context') and distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with karea_add_note (human-facing) and karea_set_markdown (long-form docs).

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: after every plan, finding, decision, or gotcha. Provides alternatives: use karea_add_note for human updates, karea_set_markdown for long-form docs. Also instructs to read first with karea_get_context before writing. No exclusions but clear prioritization.

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