set_log_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the write-enabled prerequisite and the fact that abandoned records are retained for history rather than removed, which explains why the mutation is non-destructive.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite. No redundant restatement of the name and nothing wasted.

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?

All three required parameters are documented, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the mutation profile; the description supplies the prerequisite and the abandoned-state semantics. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by defining what the 'abandoned' enum value semantically means (never going to happen, retained for history), adding meaning the schema's terse "'abandoned' needs farmOS 4" does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (mark) and resource (a log) plus the exact set of target states: pending, done, abandoned. It is clearly narrower than the sibling update_record, though it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

"Requires writes to be enabled" is a useful precondition, and "kept for history" clarifies the abandoned case. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_record or create_log, and no exclusions or failure conditions beyond the farmOS 4 note in the schema.

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