set_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the mutation is confined to local state and never propagates to the school system, which prevents the agent from misreading this as a submission action. It does not address idempotency (idempotentHint=false) or re-setting the same status.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the critical local-vs-school distinction, leaving only minor gaps around sourcing item_id and idempotent behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It enumerates the three valid status values (todo/done/ignored), which is valuable given no enum is defined in the schema, but it says nothing about item_id — its format, or that it likely comes from get_tasks. Partial compensation only.

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 (mark a local todo item as todo/done/ignored) and scopes it as local-only. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read siblings like get_tasks and from school-facing actions, though it does not name an alternative tool directly.

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 second sentence gives a useful negative boundary (it does not submit to or modify school assignments), which tells the agent when this is NOT the right tool. There is no positive guidance on when to prefer this over other write tools such as set_student_profile, so usage is only implied.

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