buzz_status_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the agent-only execution mode, the wire-mode refusal, and allows empty text. It stops short of describing success/error responses or side effects, but for a simple status-set mutation the key operational constraint is surfaced clearly.

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 compact and well-structured: action and resource first, then parameter semantics, then the critical mode caveat. Every sentence contributes necessary information without fluff or repetition.

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 is nearly complete: it names the operation, covers parameter semantics, and warns about the wire-mode failure. It could mention what happens on success or how this relates to buzz_status_clear, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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, and the description largely mirrors the schema: 'text = the status message (empty allowed)' and 'optional emoji.' It adds protocol context and the agent-mode restriction, but no new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Set your live user status,' a specific verb and resource, and adds protocol details (NIP-38 kind 30315, d=general) that make the operation unambiguous. The verb 'set' naturally contrasts with the sibling buzz_status_clear, so an agent can distinguish this tool's role without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit when-not guidance: 'AGENT MODE ONLY — wire mode (post-as-the-user) can't sign kind 30315 yet, so it refuses there.' It does not explicitly point to buzz_status_clear as the alternative for clearing status, but the mode restriction gives clear usage context.

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