rm_set_user_status

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. The description adds the constrained set of status values, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like overwriting the previous status or any permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and allowed values with no filler or repeated schema information. It is compact and immediately scannable.

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 setter, the description covers the core purpose and status vocabulary, and an output schema exists so return behavior need not be explained. However, it is incomplete regarding the semantics of 'user_id' and 'notes', and it does not point to rm_list_status_options as a way to discover valid status values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the 'status' parameter by listing valid values. It does not explain what 'user_id' refers to or what 'notes' means, leaving two of three parameters semantically under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('current working status for a user') and enumerates the exact allowed status values ('ITO', 'WFH', 'SIC', 'OOO', 'VAC', 'OOF'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_get_user_statuses and rm_list_status_options.

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 use when the agent needs to change a user's current working status, and the listed statuses give some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as rm_get_user_statuses for reading statuses or rm_list_status_options for available options.

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