set_fact_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about reversibility, re-setting a status that was already set, permission requirements, or what happens to the note (the schema mentions notes are appended, not replaced). The mutation semantics of "set" are left entirely to inference.

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 action, which is good. But the second sentence is ambiguous – "Gives the fact number and its new state" reads like parameter documentation yet could be mistaken for a return-value statement, and duplicates information already in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the three status values are covered by the schema. Still, for a state-mutating tool with no annotations the description omits the workflow context an agent needs: whether statuses can be reset, how note interacts with status, and what happens on an invalid fact_id.

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 100% – fact_id, status, and note are all documented, including the three allowed status values and the append behavior of note. The description merely restates "the fact number and its new state" and adds no format, constraints, or edge-case guidance 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?

"Set the state of a saved fact" states a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "after you compared it with the original" scopes it to facts already saved. It is distinguishable from save_fact/find_facts by the "saved fact" framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase "after you compared it with the original" implies a trigger condition for calling the tool, which is more than nothing. However, no alternatives are named (e.g. use save_fact for new facts, find_facts to locate fact_id) and there are no explicit exclusions or preconditions.

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