set_status_of_memo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Set', implying a mutation, but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether the status is replaced or appended. Essential behavioral details are missing.

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 one concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The tool is simple but the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify what 'status' means (e.g., allowed values) and the mismatch between 'memo section' and the document parameter leaves the agent uncertain. No output schema is provided, but the description could still offer more context.

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 high (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds 'memo section' context, but this introduces ambiguity as the schema parameter is 'RFCDocument' not 'section'. The added value is limited and slightly inconsistent.

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 indicates the tool sets a status on a memo section, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_status_of_memo and set_abstract. However, the addition of 'section' is ambiguous given the input schema parameter is an 'RFCDocument' without a section reference.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_abstract or set_title, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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