update_clam_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. It does not say what effect updating the status has (does it pause scanning, restart the ClamAV daemon, disable protection?), whether it is reversible, or what permissions it needs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 only three words. This is terseness by under-specification rather than effective conciseness; it is too short to convey anything actionable rather than efficiently front-loaded.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin. It does not supply the minimum information an agent needs to call it correctly, particularly the allowed values for 'status'.

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?

The single parameter 'status' has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, so the valid values are entirely undefined. The description adds no meaning about what a valid status string is (e.g., 'on'/'off', 'running'/'stopped'), leaving the caller to guess. 0 params would warrant a 4 baseline, but here the lone param is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a verb and resource ('Update' + 'ClamAV status'), so the broad intent is clear. However, 'status' is ambiguous — it could mean enabling/disabling scanning, changing a service state, or editing a record — and the description does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like update_clam_config or scan_clam. It largely restates the tool name without narrowing the meaning.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other ClamAV siblings (update_clam_config, update_clam_file, scan_clam, clean_clam_records). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what state change is being requested.

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