update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses required module/scope and a user-confirmation safeguard before mutating. It stops short of describing reversibility, side effects on the job, or error behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action then prerequisites then workflow. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, sequencing, and a safety confirmation. It omits edge behavior such as invalid statuses or what happens on a missing task, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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%, so task_id, status, and sub_domain are already documented. The description's status examples duplicate the schema's examples and add no syntax or constraint details beyond it, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: updating a job task's status, with a concrete example (marking a task complete). It distinguishes this from the sibling update_job_status by scoping it to a task and points to list_job_tasks as the companion tool.

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 explicit preconditions (Workflow module and write scope) and a prescribed workflow: list tasks first with list_job_tasks and confirm the new status with the user before calling. This is unusually strong usage guidance for a mutation tool.

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