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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers key side-effect disclosure: it is DB-only and does not rewrite plan markdown. It also notes policy can override the intended ready status. It omits auth requirements, idempotency, and error/return behavior, but the mutation scope is unusually well 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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the effect and scope before params and usage. Every clause earns its place, though the single run-on structure for param definitions is slightly dense rather than strictly tight.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effect boundaries, param semantics, and usage timing. It does not describe the response shape or failure modes, a minor gap for an otherwise complete definition.

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 0% and there are no enums in the schema, yet the description supplies full semantics for all three params: entityType (story | scenario), ordinalId (numeric US-/TS- ordinal), and status (the complete draft/ready/in progress/blocked/done/archived value set). This more than compensates for the schema gap and provides enum values the schema lacks.

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 (Update) and precise resource (lifecycle_fields.status for one user story or test scenario), and adds the scope qualifier 'DB only; does not rewrite plan markdown.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update-user-story and update-test-scenario, which edit content rather than lifecycle status.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger context: 'Used after /testchimp implement to set status to ready (unless policy overrides).' This tells the agent when it applies and the policy caveat. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use for other update needs, so it's clear context without full routing.

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