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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the originating call sees the status in its chat, but does not cover permissions, idempotency, whether transitions are reversible, or error behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core action before enumerating the status-specific expectations. Its slightly conversational phrasing is purposeful, though not maximally direct.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main usage pattern and visibility effect. It still leaves gaps around permissions, status transition rules, and what the caller should expect after the update.

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 75%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the three status values and when to pair them with a note and links. It clarifies that 'done' should include a short note plus links to what was made, and 'blocked' should explain what is needed from a person.

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 conveys that this tool reports a task's progress by setting it to working, done, or blocked. It distinguishes the action from read-oriented siblings like get_task and my_tasks, though the phrasing is indirect rather than a direct 'updates task status' statement.

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?

It gives concrete guidance for each status: working when starting, done with a note and links to produced artifacts, and blocked with what is needed from a person. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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