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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: REJECTED hides the mention and excludes it from default lists, while NEW returns it to the inbox. This clarifies side effects of the status change. The annotations are consistent with the description, with no contradictions.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the operation in the first clause and then efficiently clarifying the three possible values. No redundant wording is present.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary operational context. It explains the action and the practical consequences of each status choice, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description enriches the status parameter by explaining what each enum value actually does. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'New status: NEW, APPROVED, or REJECTED' wording.

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, 'Set a mention's status,' and defines the resource being acted on. It also enumerates the meaning of each status value, making the tool's purpose precise and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_mentions or explain_mention.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever a mention's status needs to be changed to APPROVED, REJECTED, or NEW. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the status semantics make the intended use obvious and distinct from read-only sibling tools.

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