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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the schema: the fact that a human observes progress on the plan page, and that todo is the inverse/undo state.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operational instruction comes first and the side-effect note second. Appropriately sized for a simple status setter.

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 status-setting mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is complete enough. No output schema exists, so return behavior need not be explained, though it could note what happens if an invalid task_id is supplied.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the status enum. The description's status semantics ('doing when you start...') largely restates the enum's own description, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Set a blueprint task to doing... done'), making clear this mutates a task's status. It is distinguishable from siblings in the blueprint family (blueprint_tasks, blueprint_put_stage), though it does not name any of them 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?

It gives clear when-to-use rules for each status value: 'doing when you start it', 'done when its tests pass', 'todo undoes'. That is actionable guidance for the core decision an agent faces, though it does not compare against alternative tools or state exclusions.

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