change_hotspot_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that this is a state-changing mutation affecting downstream analyses and details the conditional resolution requirement. Permissions, reversibility, and rate limits are not mentioned, but the core behavioral semantics are well covered.

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 with clear sections for status values, resolution values, and examples. Every part contributes to the agent's understanding, and the format makes it easy to scan the relevant details.

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 high schema coverage, an output schema, and the detailed conditional behavior with examples, the description is complete for correct invocation. It fully covers the required parameters, allowed values, and the relationship between status and resolution.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing exact call examples and clarifying the dependency between status and resolution, which the schema describes separately. This helps the agent construct valid invocations more confidently.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a hotspot TO_REVIEW or REVIEWED,' and even names the downstream effect. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like search_hotspots and show_hotspot.

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 clearly explains when to use each status value and the required resolution when REVIEWED, with practical examples. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the operational context is clear.

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