Set Node Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful partial-update semantics ('without touching anything else'), which tells the agent no other fields are modified. However it says nothing about permissions, behavior when the node id doesn't exist, or validation of invalid status values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (status values, optional confidence, scope limit) carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the status value set is covered. But for an unannotated mutation tool the description omits permission requirements and error behavior for a missing/invalid node, and confidence remains an unconstrained string with no documented domain.

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 there are no enums in the schema, so the description compensates partially by listing the valid status values and noting confidence is optional. It adds nothing for `id` or `vault`, and doesn't specify valid confidence values, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Update a node's status') with the allowed status values enumerated and a scope constraint ('without touching anything else') that implicitly separates it from upsert_node. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it lands just under a 5.

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 says what it does but gives no when-to-use guidance versus upsert_node, update_note_frontmatter, or promotion tools. Usage is only inferable from the scope phrase 'without touching anything else'.

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