set_status

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, but the description goes further by disclosing idempotency, that recurring events affect only the occurrence, and that the result is returned in a unified format. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot derive from the structured fields.

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 hard constraint ('uniquement sur demande explicite de Denis') is front-loaded before any mechanics, and every clause carries operational information. Dense but no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained (though the unified format is mentioned), and the safety profile is covered by annotations. Guards, scope, idempotency and the delete alternative make this complete for a 2-param mutation tool.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It gives status values (which the enum already provides) and clarifies that `id` refers to an event or task, but says nothing about id format or resolution. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Change le statut d'un événement ou d'une tâche') and enumerates the target states (open, done, cancelled). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `delete` tool, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Unusually explicit: it says to call only on Denis's explicit request, never on its own initiative, and gives the alternative rule ('préférer cancelled à delete : on garde la trace'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the competing tool are all named.

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