agent_update_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key non-obvious behavior: a manual write is transient and will be overwritten by the next hook/inactivity update. It does not cover permission requirements or the response shape, but the output schema covers returns, so this is solid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the behavioral caveat and the usage restriction. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: that the change is transient and easily overwritten. Auth/permission details are the only real gap.

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 fully documented in the schema (including enum-like status values and the note that agent_id is the id from agent_list, not the name). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an Agent's running status') and, crucially, distinguishes this manual operation from the automatic status maintenance performed by hook events and inactivity. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the auto-maintained status path.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: the status is normally maintained automatically, and this tool should be used 'only to correct a status the hooks left stale.' Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, along with the reason (the next automatic update overwrites the manual write).

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