set_published_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('change status') without revealing side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or consequences of setting to 'error' or 'completed'. This is insufficient for a mutation 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, efficient sentence that gets to the point without wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, though it is terse and omits important usage and parameter context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the impact of status changes, expected return values, or any edge cases. The lack of behavioral and parameter detail makes it inadequate for confident 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The status enum is repeated in the description, but the id parameter is unexplained, and no values or usage details are given. With only 2 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Change le status') and the resource ('PublishedLeadMagnet'), and lists the possible statuses. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the unique status-setting function is evident.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like publish_lead_magnet or toggle_published_dm. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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