Add / set status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Add or set' is consistent with that. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or reversibility. The openWorldHint=true annotation is not reflected in the description, leaving the tool's behavior underspecified.

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, short sentence that is easy to parse and free of fluff. It earns its place by stating the core action, though it could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing 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?

For a mutation tool with an open-world parameter object and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields are expected, how success is reported, or any side effects. Annotations and schema cover some basics, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 100% description coverage for the 'params' property, describing it as an object of fields passed to Smart NPV. The tool description's 'Fields go inside params' is redundant but consistent. With high schema coverage, the description adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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's action ('Add or set') and target ('a status on a client'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from read-only siblings like get_client_status and get_status_list, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_client or get_client_status. The description only states what it does, not the conditions or contexts that warrant its use.

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