status_set_stage

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states 'Set' implying mutation, but offers no details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or how the configuration is applied. The parameter schema describes the nested object but not its effects.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 it is a mutation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the expected structure of the 'screens' object, what happens to existing configuration, or return behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'screens' described as 'The screen configuration to apply'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool sets configuration of stage screens, but lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like stage_set_layout_map or stage_set_screen_layout. The verb 'Set' and resource 'configuration of stage screens' are clear, but the scope of 'configuration' is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many stage-related siblings (e.g., stage_set_layout_map, stage_set_screen_layout), the description provides no decision criteria or context for appropriate use.

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