set_gap_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does a good job flagging that this is a WRITE ACTION requiring a Pro plan. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like on success. It hints at WRITE ACTION but provides no evidence destination or side-effect details beyond the status change.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Each sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose and parameter provenance with an example, the second delivers the critical plan-level constraint. Danger cue 'WRITE ACTION' is front-loaded for safety.

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 3-param, all-required, enum-driven tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, an example, and the plan prerequisite. The only minor gap is lack of success/error response semantics, but given the tool's simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, the description is appropriately complete.

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%, and the description adds complementary value rather than redundancy. It ties gapKey and domain to list_gaps as their provenance source ('Use the gapKey and domain from list_gaps'), giving the agent concrete operational knowledge about where to obtain these values — this exceeds what the schema alone provides. The description does not restate the enum values or definitions already in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Update one gap's status in the action queue') with explicit enumerable status values (todo / doing / done). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_gaps (read) and queue_article (different resource), and names the working context (action queue for gaps).

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 explicitly states the source of required parameters ('Use the gapKey and domain from list_gaps') and provides a concrete example ('e.g. mark the schema gap for acme.com done'). It also names a prerequisite — the Pro plan requirement — and explicitly excludes Starter/trial use, which clearly directs when this tool should NOT be invoked.

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