Set voice channel status

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by explaining that passing an empty status clears it and that this is the live status, not the topic. It does not contradict the annotations; readOnlyHint=false aligns with the write operation. It doesn't detail permissions or side effects, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 three concise sentences: the first front-loads the action and constraints, the second explains the clear behavior, and the third makes the crucial topic distinction. There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 simple setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, the maximum length, how to clear it, and the distinction from topic. It is complete and gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches the meaning of 'status' by explaining it as the live status line about what's happening in the channel, and clarifies that empty clears it (though the schema also says this). This added context justifies a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'voice channel status,' specifying it is the short status line shown on a voice channel, up to 500 characters. It also distinguishes from the topic, setting it apart from related tools like update_channel.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (setting the live status) and contrasts it with the topic, implying that this is not for setting the topic. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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