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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds substantial context beyond them: it writes a PENDING suggestion, a human reviews and accepts it in the Suggestions inbox, and only on accept is the status actually applied. This two-phase, deferred-application behavior is exactly what an agent needs and cannot be inferred from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the deferred-review mechanism, then the usage condition. Three sentences, each carrying distinct information, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the outcome, and it does: a PENDING suggestion is created and the status is applied only upon human acceptance. Combined with the fully covered schema, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents taskId, status (with enum), and reason. The description restates the status enum values already present in the schema and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it, so the 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 specific verb+resource (propose a task status change), enumerates the valid target statuses, and names the mechanism (a PENDING suggestion). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from direct mutation siblings like update_task/bulk_update_status via 'rather than flipping it yourself', so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

'Use when you observe a task should move (e.g. work referenced it this week) but want human confirmation rather than flipping it yourself' gives both a positive trigger and a when-not condition with an alternative behavior. It falls just short of 5 because the alternative tool (update_task) is described behaviorally rather than named.

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