splithub_set_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose the deprecation window and that this is an alias, which is useful behavioral context. It does not say whether the alias still performs the mutation identically or whether it warns/errors on invocation, leaving the actual runtime behavior unclear.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the rename and the call-to-action. No 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?

For a deprecated shim, the agent mainly needs to know not to use it and where to go instead, and that is covered thoroughly. The missing piece is whether invocation still succeeds or fails during the one-release window.

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 description was expected to compensate, and it adds nothing about the experiment identifier or the running/paused/finished status enum. Only the schema itself conveys the accepted values.

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 identifies the tool as the former name of splithub_experiment_status, which lets an agent infer the operation from that sibling. It never directly states the verb+resource (setting an experiment's status), so the purpose is only reachable through the pointer rather than stated outright.

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?

It gives an explicit directive: call splithub_experiment_status instead, and frames the lifespan as 'kept for one release.' There is no ambiguity about which tool to prefer among the siblings.

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