conduyt_update_agent_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: omit-a-field-keeps-stored-value semantics (implying a read-then-write), the 422 refusal for available/offline and duplicate labels, and the nuanced side effect that a rep already on a hidden status retains it until they change. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs before mutating.

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 dense paragraph with no filler; the identity statement and the parameter semantics come first. It is on the long side and the code list runs inline, but every clause (defaults, refusals, partial-update behavior) contributes actionable information.

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 two-param settings-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth requirement, merge semantics, validation failures, and edge-case side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding validation and defaulting meaning the schema lacks — the 1–24 char label bound, "empty string restores the default," and the fact that available/offline will be refused with 422. The one gap is that the hidden array's full-replacement semantics is largely restated from the schema property description.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: "Rename or hide the curated dialer statuses (settings.agentStatuses)", and enumerates the exact codes in scope. An agent can distinguish this from get_agent_statuses (read) and update_master_statuses without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a real precondition ("Requires settings:edit") and implied usage context, but never says when to reach for this versus reading statuses first via conduyt_get_agent_statuses or routing elsewhere. Guidance is present but not framed as when/when-not/alternatives.

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