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

While annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only operation, the description adds that it specifically modifies the tracker stage rather than other application data. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior, but the operation is simple.

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 conveys the operation, resource, and valid values with no fluff. The key information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, this description is adequate for basic invocation, especially with the stage enum in the schema. But it does not clarify whether the application must already exist, whether stages can be set in any order, or what happens after a successful call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description helps by contextualizing application_id as the target application and stage as one of five tracker stages. However, it mostly restates the enum from the schema and does not explain application_id format or any constraints.

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 clearly states the tool sets the tracker stage for one application and enumerates the exact allowed stages. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tracker (read-only) and set_tracker_note (different resource).

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 implies the use case—updating an application's tracker stage—but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the application already existing.

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