Set component status

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not in the annotations: the change is customer-visible. It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the customer-visibility caveat attached immediately after the examples. No filler.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers what it does, how it differs from the incident path, and the customer-facing consequence. It omits auth/prerequisite notes and any mention of success/failure behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 67%: pageId and componentId carry their own source hints, and status is a closed enum that already enumerates the legal values. The description's examples (DEGRADEDPERFORMANCE, OPERATIONAL) merely restate enum members, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Change a component's status') plus scope ('on the public status page') and explicitly distinguishes the action from opening an incident. An agent can separate it from create_incident/post_incident_update without reading the schema.

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 clarifies this route is for direct status changes rather than incident creation, effectively naming the alternative mechanism by negation ('without opening an incident'). It lacks an explicit when-not or prerequisite statement, but the selection context is clear.

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