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

Annotations already convey read-write, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the 'fix task' scope and allowed statuses, though the enum is already in the schema; no side effects or transition rules are disclosed.

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 states the action, resource, and allowed values with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 update with complete schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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%: both task_id and status are documented in the schema, including the enum and the origin of task_id. The description's parenthetical status list adds no information beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('status of a fix task'), and enumerates the four allowed statuses. This makes it immediately distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like list_tasks and get_fix_plan.

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 clearly implies the tool is for changing a fix task's status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling list makes the read/write distinction inferable, but the description leaves it implicit.

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