studio_status

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

No annotations provided, so description shoulders full burden. It details actions and return values for status, but for the rename mutation, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. Error behavior for invalid inputs is not mentioned.

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?

Description is structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the main purpose. While clear, the Returns section repeats information likely present in the output schema, adding minor redundancy. Overall efficient.

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?

Covers all actions, parameters, and return structure despite complexity (4 params, multiple actions). Output schema exists but description supplements it. Lacks error handling or prerequisite info, but adequate for core functionality.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: notebook_id as UUID, action with three enumerated values, and conditional parameters artifact_id and new_title for rename. This adds essential context missing from 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?

Description explicitly states the tool checks studio content generation status and can rename artifacts. It lists three actions (status, rename, list_types) with clear resources (studio artifacts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_status or notebook_query_status which handle different domains.

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?

The description implies usage through parameter explanations and action options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., research_status for research artifacts). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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