romm_set_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: modifies only own data, parameter defaults and effects, mutual exclusivity of mark_played and clear_played, and status empty leaving unchanged. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage guideline, then a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or vague statements.

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 the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, usage, and side effects, satisfying the needs for a mutation tool.

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%, but the description explains every parameter in detail with explicit values, defaults, and behaviors (e.g., -1 for leave unchanged, empty string for status). Adds meaning such as mutual exclusivity and marking/unmarking semantics.

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 verb 'set' and the resource 'personal play status on a ROM', specifying it modifies only own user data. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like romm_status (likely a getter) and romm_favorite.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to provide only fields to change and that omitted fields are left as-is. Each parameter is explained with valid values and defaults. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly name alternatives, though the sibling list implies romm_status for reading.

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