set_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a mutation but says nothing about the required `expected_revision` optimistic-concurrency guard, whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens on a revision mismatch. For a write tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity leaves the substantive behavioral and parameter gaps unaddressed rather than being optimally informative.

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 a 5-parameter mutation tool with a required revision token, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to satisfy the concurrency requirement or predict field-omission semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It maps meaning onto the three status fields (lifecycle/reading/interest) and implies they are combinable via "and/or", but it explains neither the required `id` (kn_ pattern) nor `expected_revision` (sha256 concurrency token), which are exactly the parameters an agent can most easily get wrong.

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 names a specific verb ("Change") and enumerates the three status axes it can mutate: lifecycle status, bookmark reading status, and place/product/recipe interest status. This is clear enough to distinguish it from a generic `update`, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like `set_tags` or `update`, which also appear to modify entry state.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus `update`, `set_tags`, or `complete_review`. The "and/or" hints that one or more status fields may be set together, but there is no stated context, precondition, or exclusion to route the agent.

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