seerr_set_request_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' reinforces the non-read-only nature but adds no significant new behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility). It is consistent with annotations, hence no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action. The additional warning is brief and serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content. It is efficiently structured for a simple tool.

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?

Given that this is a write operation with 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention valid status options, any prerequisites, or side effects. Although an output schema exists for return values, the lack of parameter context makes the tool inadequate for correct invocation.

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% and the description provides no explanation of parameters. It does not mention valid status values, the format of request_id, or any constraints, leaving the agent without essential information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('a request's status'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from other request tools by focusing on status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from seerr_update_request.

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 this tool vs alternatives like seerr_update_request or seerr_set_issue_status. The only extra sentence 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' is a warning about behavior, not a usage guideline.

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