huddo_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: that huddo_wait implicitly sets presence to online/busy, which could otherwise cause surprising state. It nonetheless omits whether the change persists, whether it requires group membership or permissions, and who sees the note.

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, front-loaded with the action and its options, followed immediately by the sibling relationship. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 small 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, valid states, the optional note, and the interaction with huddo_wait. Remaining gaps (persistence, visibility, identity fallback behavior) are minor.

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 67%: the `as` and `note` parameters are documented in the schema, while `state` relies on its enum. The description adds a usage example for `note` ('reviewing PR') and restates the two state values, but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema's 80-char limit.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Set your presence shown to the group') and enumerates the state values, so the agent knows exactly what state is mutated. It also names the sibling huddo_wait and distinguishes its implicit presence behavior from this explicit setter.

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 sentence about huddo_wait 'already reports online while waiting and busy when it returns messages' gives clear context for when this tool is redundant versus needed, implying you call huddo_status to set presence manually. However, no explicit 'use this when / don't use this when' instruction or prerequisite is given.

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