update_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the status is a short profile message and enforces the 200-character limit, which gives useful context. However, it does not state whether the previous status is overwritten, whether the change is immediately public, or any authentication/rate-limit implications beyond the required token parameter.

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 three short sentences and leads with the core action before adding context and constraint. The analogy 'Like a mood or a thought of the moment' is slightly optional but helps convey the semantic scope of a status line, and the character limit is usefully repeated.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is updated, where it appears, and the length constraint. It does not describe the response or error cases, but those are not required for such a straightforward mutation and the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'status' is a short message and mentions the max length, matching the schema's own description. It adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already documents, especially for the 'token' parameter.

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 identifies the action ('Update your status line'), the target resource ('status line'), and what the status line is ('a short message that appears on your profile'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like update_profile, which would update broader profile settings.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent wants to set or change the user's status line. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives such as update_profile or edit_post, leaving some inference to the agent.

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