emu_set_phone_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'updates' a status, which implies a mutation operation, but it does not disclose what the effect is on the RISDB projection, whether it overwrites existing status, or if there are any side effects (e.g., triggering re-registration). The target 'RISDB projection' is mentioned but not explained. More behavioral context (e.g., persistence, immediate effect, or reversibility) would be valuable.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient and to the point, with no wasted words. It could add a bit more context without becoming verbose, but as is, it is well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps. The tool is part of a larger emulation suite (likely a test/demo system), so the context of 'RISDB projection' might be assumed. However, an agent might need to know what happens after the update (e.g., does it affect call simulation?), or whether there are constraints (e.g., can you set any status randomly?). Given the complexity of the system, a bit more context would be useful.

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 the schema already describes both parameters (status enum and phoneName example). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides; it just restates the fields. Since coverage is high, 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 verb (Updates), the resource (registration status of a specific Cisco IP phone), and the target (RISDB projection). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like emu_list_phones (which lists) and emu_set_node_status (which updates node status). It could be slightly more specific about what 'registration status' means in context, but it is clear enough.

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 implies when to use it (when updating a phone's registration status), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools, some guidance on when to use this vs. other phone-related tools (like emu_get_phone_web or emu_simulate_call) would be helpful. The context is inferable from the name and description, but no explicit exclusions are provided.

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