set_image_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the image content is not changed, while indicating that the status is modified. This is useful, though it does not cover potential transition rules, reversibility, or permissions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and a key boundary in just eight words. Every part is meaningful, with no redundant or filler content.

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 setter with three fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and its most important behavioral constraint. Nothing essential seems missing for an agent to select and 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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without enhancing meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the target ('annotation workflow status'), and adds the key non-effect 'without changing the image.' This distinguishes it from sibling annotation editing tools like add_bbox_annotations and edit_bbox_annotation.

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 implies this is for updating workflow status rather than modifying image content, but it never explicitly states when to use it or provides direct alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools are given, though the phrase 'without changing the image' offers some contextual hint.

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