set-user-status

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the key behavior annotations cannot express: the status is replaced wholesale, so an omitted emoji, end time, or effect is deleted rather than retained. That PUT-semantics warning is genuinely useful for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 what the tool does, then the destructive-replacement caveat, then the clear path. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain returns. It closes the main remaining gap, the replace-not-merge semantics, and points at clear; only the required-message pairing is left to the schema.

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%, so every parameter already carries its own documentation and the baseline is 3. The replacement sentence does add interpretation about omitted fields across emoji, activeUntil, and the pause flags, but it does not go further into per-parameter meaning (e.g. pauseNotifications dropping rather than deferring notifications) beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Set or clear the user's status') plus the visible scope ('shown next to their name in Todoist and Comms'), so its purpose is unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get-user-status by being the write path, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 one concrete usage rule ('Use clear to remove the status'), which covers the removal case well. It says nothing about when to prefer this over other tools, or about preconditions such as needing a message when not clearing, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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