set_status_bar

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or whether changes persist. It does not mention that SystemUI demo mode may need to be activated or that the tool overrides system UI temporarily. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is too sparse. It omits essential details, making it concise at the expense of usefulness.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, optionality of serial, behavior when no parameters are provided, or any special requirements. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional information.

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 only 50% (time, serial, wifi_level have descriptions; battery_level, battery_charging, hide_notifications do not). The description mentions 'notifications' but does not clarify which parameter maps to it, nor does it explain ranges or relationships (e.g., battery_charging). It adds little beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Override') and the target ('status bar via SystemUI demo mode'), listing the affected aspects (time, battery, wifi, notifications). It is specific enough to distinguish from a reset tool like clear_status_bar, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention clear_status_bar as a way to reset. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios (e.g., demo mode must be enabled), leaving the agent to infer usage.

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