set_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that contact dates update automatically when status flips to applied/interviewing/offer/closed, but it does not explain permissions, transition restrictions, or what happens if contact dates already exist.

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 two short sentences with the side effect front-loaded after the core action. It is efficient, though the phrase 'the status' remains slightly vague about the target object.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, three parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is missing critical details: which application app_id identifies, what 'when' controls, and any transition or permission constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input side remains under-described.

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 0% for three parameters. The description adds meaning by listing status values (applied/interviewing/offer/closed), which the schema lacks as an enum, but it leaves app_id and especially the 'when' parameter completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Set the status') and enumerates status values that make the application-status context inferable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling update_application, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use set_status instead of update_application or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only contextual clue is the automatic contact-date behavior for certain statuses.

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