status_set_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, side effects, or error conditions. For a configuration tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Set'), though it could be more specific. The structure is clear but minimal, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (configuration tool with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails, how changes affect the system, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The description mentions 'configuration' which aligns with the single parameter 'screens' (schema coverage is 100%). However, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides—the schema already describes it as 'The screen configuration to apply'. No details on format, structure, or examples are given, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Set the configuration of stage screens' clearly states the action (set) and target (stage screens configuration), but it's vague about what 'configuration' entails. It doesn't specify what aspects of stage screens are being configured (layout, visibility, content, etc.), and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'stage_set_screen_layout' or 'stage_set_layout_map' which might handle similar functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to stage, screens, and layouts (e.g., 'stage_set_screen_layout', 'stage_set_layout_map', 'status_get_stage'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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