set_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does not: it never says the change is a mutation visible to other agents, whether it persists across sessions, or whether it conflicts with task state (e.g., set_master/busy during claim_task). The only real disclosure is that it is self-scoped ('自己的').

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the enum values up front, no filler. It is terse rather than padded; the only issue is that the brevity comes at the cost of coverage, not wasted words.

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 so return values need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage the description leaves too much open: the role of 'note' and 'agent', and the observable effect of going offline, are missing. Inadequate for a presence-setting tool in a multi-agent hub.

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 0%, and the description only compensates for one of three parameters by listing the status enum values (useful, since the schema declares no enum). The 'note' and 'agent' parameters are undocumented in both places, leaving their effect on the call genuinely unclear.

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+resource ('set your own online status') and enumerates the four valid values, which lets an agent distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like whoami or team_status. It stops short of naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'your own' implies this is a self-presence operation rather than an administrative one, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus team_status (reading presence) or when not to. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated.

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