update_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool edits the existing status message, which is a key behavior, but it does not explain edge cases like what happens if no status message exists, how progress_percent affects the message, or whether the update is idempotent. This is partial transparency.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by a key behavioral distinction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the core function and unique differentiator. Minor missing details, such as behavior when no status exists, prevent a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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%, with both parameters explained clearly in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update the status ticker message.' It also distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it edits an existing message rather than sending a new one, which aligns with the sibling tools like send_telegram_message.

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 provides clear usage context: use this to update an existing status message instead of sending a new one, thereby reducing message spam. It implies the alternative (sending a new message) without naming specific sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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