rba_set_client_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active connection), or what happens with the 'target' parameter. The vague plural 'connected Roblox clients' conflicts with the schema's target options (all, first, or specific ID), leaving behavior unclear.

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 sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Update'. It contains no filler and is immediately actionable.

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 has 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain the meaning of 'level' or 'target', nor the behavior of the status panel. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional documentation, especially given the schema's target options and enum.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (level, target, message). It provides no added meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description's mention of 'status panel' vaguely hints at the message content but does not clarify purpose or usage of any parameter.

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 'Update the in-game RBA status panel on connected Roblox clients.' This identifies the specific action (update), the resource (in-game RBA status panel), and the scope (connected Roblox clients). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle notifications or code execution.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_notify_clients or rba_send_lua. The description only implies usage by its purpose, lacking explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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