设置错题状态

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

With no annotations, the description's statement that archiving does not delete the problem, number, revision, or review history is a valuable, non-obvious behavioral guarantee. It addresses the destructive/non-destructive concern without contradicting any structured metadata, though it does not discuss other potential side effects.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a key qualifying statement, making it easy to parse and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the description fails to explain the idempotency_key parameter and offers no usage context relative to update_problem, leaving some gaps for an agent preparing a correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds meaning for the 'status' parameter by listing its enum values. The 'number' and 'idempotency_key' parameters remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and format.

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 tool's action ('set problem status') and the resource ('problem'), and explicitly lists the three allowed statuses: active, mastered, or archived. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_problem or adjust_priority, which focus on different attributes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_problem, record_review, or other siblings. It only describes what the tool does, not the scenarios that call for it, and offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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