microcms_patch_content_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions only valid status transitions (PUBLISH/DRAFT) but omits side effects, permissions, or what happens to content after status change (e.g., response or state confirmation).

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds a key constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with primary action.

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?

Lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., content must exist), expected response, or valid transition sequences. The note is ambiguous about whether transitions like PUBLISH->PUBLISH are allowed. Incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds the constraint of supported transitions, which aligns with the enum but does not provide new parameter details beyond what schema descriptions already offer.

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?

Description clearly states the tool changes publication status between PUBLISH and DRAFT, using a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('content publication status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like microcms_create_content_draft which create new content rather than status.

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 note about supported transitions provides context but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives like microcms_patch_content or update_content_draft. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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