Set Contact Status

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral constraints: the status is peer-visible, writes require complete scoped reads, failures must not block other work, and denials must not be retried. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 very compact and front-loads the core action and precondition. Some phrasing is dense and slightly cryptic, but there is little wasted text.

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 rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key operational preconditions and failure-handling rules. It is largely complete, though it could better distinguish sibling tools and explain the status lifecycle.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual context like shared facts and acknowledgements, but it does not add syntax or field-level meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific write action, 'Save a peer-visible Status pill,' and scopes it to the user's own Event connection. It is clearer than the title alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from related contact/status tools such as set_contact_identifier or set_contact_preferences.

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?

It provides explicit preconditions: share_contact_status must be enabled and scoped reads must be complete. It also gives when-not guidance such as never clearing on incomplete history and never retrying denial, though it does not name alternative sibling tools.

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