update_my_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the purpose (informing other agents), suggests content length (1-2 sentences), and gives examples. It doesn't mention overwriting or permissions, but for a simple status update, these are not critical gaps.

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 well-structured, using bold for emphasis and including practical examples without any redundant sentences. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, when to use it, what to include in the status, and provides examples. No significant information gap remains.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds examples for the status parameter but doesn't provide new meaning for agent_id beyond the schema's 'Your agent ID'. Overall, it modestly enriches the schema description.

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's action ('Tell other agents what you're doing') and its resource (your status), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_presence or clear_status. Examples further clarify that the status should describe current focus, intent, or blockers.

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 conveys when to use the tool ('they can't see your work otherwise') and provides concrete examples for typical scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative status-related tools like update_vision, leaving the differentiation implied.

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