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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dual addressing scheme but omits mutation semantics that matter here: whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial vs. replace), and what happens if both status_id and board_id+code are provided.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though for a 7-parameter mutation tool it borders on underspecified rather than optimally sized.

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?

Seven parameters, zero required, no output schema, and a mutation with no annotation detail on merge behavior. The description leaves the agent without the addressing precondition or the partial-update contract needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already documented; the baseline would be 3. The description genuinely adds value by explaining the relationship between board_id and code as a paired composite key and framing status_id as the alternative lookup path, which the flat schema does not convey.

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 specific verb (update) and resource (status), plus the two addressing modes (status_id or board_id+code). This distinguishes it implicitly from create_status, delete_status, and reorder_statuses, though no sibling is named 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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. create_status/reorder_statuses, or that reordering via 'index' might be better served by reorder_statuses. Critically, required parameters = 0, so the agent gets no signal that at least one addressing mode must be supplied.

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