set_status

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

Rich behavioral detail: health-monitor reassignment exemption, enum aliasing (busy/away→working), auth requirements (own token only), and error codes. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose mutation, auth, and enum-widening. The mapping details add significant value beyond just 'declares status'.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (When to use, Behavior, Returns, Errors) that front-load the critical decision context. Slightly verbose in places but every sentence earns its place with concrete operational details like the enum mapping and version reference.

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?

Complete for a state-setting tool: describes behavior, health-monitor implications, return shape, error codes, and auth requirements. Given no output schema, the Returns section compensates by documenting the response shape. No annotations require additional disclosure.

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 100% and the description adds substantial semantic value: it explains the legacy alias mapping (online→idle, busy→working, away→blocked), notes which statuses exempt from reassignment, and clarifies which values are relay-computed vs agent-settable. Also explains the optional agent_token resolution chain via env/header.

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?

Declares operational state distinct from presence, with explicit verb (declare, set) and resource (agent_status). Explicitly differentiates from last_seen-derived presence and identifies sibling get_standup for rollup use. Purpose is specific and clear.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section states the context (tell the relay what kind of work you're in for health monitor/orchestrator routing) and explicitly distinguishes from last_seen-derived presence and names the alternative get_standup. Provides clear when-use and when-not-use guidance.

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