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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a partial or full update, what permissions are required, whether fields not supplied are preserved, or how conflicts/unknown status IDs are handled for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably terse enough to leave gaps, but there is no wasted structure to trim.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits which fields are updatable, whether the update is partial, and constraints on the identifier modes. An agent must infer most calling behavior from the schema alone.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new semantics: status_id and board_id+code are alternative lookup mechanisms, a relationship the schema does not express. It still does not clarify whether exactly one mode is required.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('status'), and clarifies the two identity-resolution paths. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_status or delete_status, but the verb makes the CRUD role unambiguous.

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 explains the two ways to address a status (statusId vs boardId+code) but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of alternative tools such as reorder_statuses or transition_task_status. Usage context is only implied.

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