contacts_update_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only transport metadata (POST/gRPC/socket) and says nothing about whether an existing status is overwritten, permission requirements, or error behavior.

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 the operation first and the transport details parenthetically appended; nothing is redundant. Minor noise from the endpoint/gRPC/socket identifiers, but the structure is tight.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain parameter intent and mutation semantics. It instead provides transport details, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it correctly.

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 all three parameters are undocumented. The description only hints at the 'status' field via 'status / about text'; channelId and contactId receive no explanation, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource ('Store a contact's status / about text') is specific and readable, and the endpoint/gRPC/socket identifiers pin it to a concrete operation. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling contacts_update, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as contacts_update, which is the obvious ambiguous sibling. The agent gets no condition that selects this tool over the other contacts mutation tools.

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