Assign a status to profiles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavior of creating a status on the fly when name+color are provided, which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, it does not mention what happens when both statusId and name/color are supplied, or when the statusId does not exist, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and then immediately gives the parameter usage pattern. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity and the schema/annotations provided, the description covers the core behavior and parameter modes well. It explains how to assign an existing status or create-and-apply a new one. It lacks only minor contextual details like error handling or return value, but these are not essential given the output schema is absent.

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?

The description clarifies the relationship between parameters: statusId is for existing statuses, while name+color are for creating a new status. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only notes name is used when statusId is omitted. The ids parameter is obvious from 'several profiles'. The description compensates for the schema's limited coverage (50%).

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 opens with 'Set the status of several profiles at once', which names the specific verb (Set), the resource (status of profiles), and the scope (several at once). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_status or update_status, which create or modify status objects themselves.

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 explains two usage modes: pass statusId for an existing status, or pass name and color to create on the fly. This tells the user when to use each sub-path, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer assign_status over create_status+update_profile or other alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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