Update working state

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by noting the memory:write permission requirement, that it versions the state slot, refreshes expiry, and does not delete other memories. This complements the destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, behavior, alternatives, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage guidance, side effects, and permission requirements. It does not mention return values, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need. It is sufficiently complete for a mutation tool with rich schema annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by advising to 'Provide content or a structured state field,' which groups the parameters conceptually but does not go beyond the schema's 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 explicitly states 'Create or replace one scoped working-state record' and gives the intended use (resuming a task, next action, blocker). It also names alternatives, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remember and record_event.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use remember for durable facts or record_event for history.' This tells the agent exactly when to prefer this tool over its alternatives.

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