set_user_status

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

Annotations already mark the call non-destructive and idempotent, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond them: leaving fields empty preserves current values, icon is only used with message, and clear_at=0 disables auto-clear. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns layout is scannable with every line adding information. There is no filler or redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given the simple tool, non-destructive/idempotent annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers core behavior, constraints, parameter semantics, and return value. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: each parameter gets semantics, examples, valid values ('online', 'away', 'dnd', ...), and empty/default behavior. It also documents the at-least-one invariant not present in the schema.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and object ('Set the current user's status') and defines the scope: status type, custom message, or both in a single call. This is enough to distinguish from sibling get_user_status and clear_user_status by intent.

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?

Provides clear usage constraints ('At least one of status_type or message must be provided') and explains empty fields preserve current values, but never states when to prefer clear_user_status for clearing or get_user_status for reading. Selection among the status siblings is left implied.

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