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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the override of the agent app, that status 2/3/9 close the task and trigger notifications per account settings, and that a user confirmation is required. It also flags the excluded status 10, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 destructive warning and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, and the status-code list is compact and necessary given the numeric API. The single dense paragraph bundles purpose, effects, and parameter enumeration, which costs a little readability but wastes nothing.

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 2-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers safety, side effects, and allowed values thoroughly. It doesn't mention what the response contains or error/retry behavior, but nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by enumerating what each settable code (0,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9) denotes and which ones close/notify. It stops short of 5 only because the job_id parameter gets no added semantics.

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 ('force a task's status') plus scope (overriding the agent app) and the exact endpoint POST /v2/update_task_status. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tookan_assign_agent_to_task or tookan_create_delivery_task.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: 'confirm with the user first' and 'Deleting (10) is not offered,' which rules out a tempting but invalid action. It doesn't name a sibling tool as the alternative for non-forced status changes, so it falls short of a 5.

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