set_status_bar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Override' but does not disclose that the change persists until cleared (via clear_status_bar), that it only applies to simulators, or what permissions/requirements exist. This is a mutation tool with a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and the reason efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and parameter documentation is complete. However, for a tool that overrides persistent simulator state, the description omits the restoration path (clear_status_bar) and the simulator-only constraint, leaving a gap in operational completeness.

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 100%, so all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Override status bar appearance'. It clarifies the motivation ('for consistent screenshots'), but does not distinguish this tool from its counterpart clear_status_bar or set_appearance. An agent can understand the action but must infer sibling boundaries.

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 phrase 'for consistent screenshots' implies the primary use case, so usage is suggested. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and the alternative tools (clear_status_bar, set_appearance) are not referenced. Guidance is implied but incomplete.

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