set_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not describe side effects such as whether the status change is broadcast to others, whether it persists for a duration, or if it can be undone. The optional agent_id parameter raises questions about whether this tool can change another agent's presence, which is not addressed. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, composed of a single clause and an enumeration. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the core action and valid values are presented immediately. It is an excellent example of front-loaded, efficient description.

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 is simple with two parameters, one required, and the core functionality is clear from the description and schema. However, the optional agent_id is unexplained, and there is no indication of return values or side effects. The description is adequate for basic use cases but leaves edge cases and optional parameter behavior under-specified, so it is not complete enough for a complex invocation scenario.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the enum values for 'status', which adds some semantic context beyond the raw schema, but it omits any explanation of the 'agent_id' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose, optionality, and default behavior unclear. The description provides minimal added value for the status parameter and none for agent_id.

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 the tool's action ('Set presence') and enumerates the allowed values (idle, working, waiting), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_status' which reads presence rather than modifying it. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether the status applies to the current agent or a specified agent via the optional agent_id parameter, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description—this tool is used to update presence status. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. For a simple setter, the implied usage is understandable, but the lack of any situational guidance prevents a higher score.

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