prom_seller_set_message_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the operation is a write that is disabled unless the PROM_ALLOW_WRITES environment flag is set. However, it says nothing about allowed status values, idempotency, or the effect of the change, leaving significant mutation-related behavior undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the operational gate; nothing is padded. It is lean, though the extreme brevity means little is actually conveyed.

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 write tool with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin: no valid status values, no permission/effect details, and no failure behavior are covered. Only the write gate is addressed, leaving the agent under-equipped to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema names both parameters (ids, status) with no meaning attached. The description only adds the batch hint 'one or more' for ids, which the array/minItems:1 schema already implies, and offers nothing on valid status values despite there being no enum to constrain them.

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 ('Change status') plus resource ('seller messages'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling prom_seller_set_order_status and from read/list siblings like prom_seller_list_messages. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in prose.

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 only conditional given is the write gate ('Disabled unless PROM_ALLOW_WRITES=true'), which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to change a message status versus replying (prom_seller_reply_message) or reading it, and no exclusions.

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