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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavior: it notifies no one, it is reversible via one more call, and it requires a Cotlet API key scoped to this app. That directly explains the low-risk profile the annotations imply.

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 opening two sentences are redundant (both restate 'set a manual status on a job'), and the phrasing 'It reaches no one and one more call sets it back' is awkward. The useful auth note is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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 two-parameter status update with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: valid values, reversibility, no notifications, and the auth requirement. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description largely restates the status values already present in the schema, adding no format or constraint 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 states a specific verb (Set) and resource (a manual status on a job) and enumerates the valid target statuses. It is distinct from sibling read/create tools, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate itself.

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 gives implied context that this runs automatically because it is reversible and notifies no one ('runs without asking first'), but it never states when to use this versus alternatives or which statuses are appropriate for which workflow stage.

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