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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds useful context that the change is visible to the human on the plan page, but it does not disclose that an update overwrites the task's existing status, which is the behavior behind the destructive hint.

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, the lifecycle rule front-loaded and the visibility note second. No redundant or filler content.

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 4-parameter mutation tool whose schema fully documents each field and whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the core semantics an agent needs. It stops short of describing the return value, but there is no output schema, so that gap is modest.

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%, including a description of the status enum and provenance for task_id and instance_id. The description's status text is essentially a restatement of the enum description already in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Set a blueprint task to doing/done/todo') and encodes the lifecycle meaning of each status value. It is distinguishable from blueprint_tasks (listing) and blueprint_put_stage (stage-level), 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?

Gives clear when-to-use triggers for each status: 'doing when you start it', 'done when its tests pass', 'todo undoes'. It does not state exclusions or point at alternative tools, but the trigger conditions for each mode are unambiguous.

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