vibemap_update_kanban_status

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it validates allowed state transitions, prevents invalid moves, and lists valid stage sequences for each entity type. No contradictions detected.

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 concise (two sentences plus stage lists) and front-loaded with the deprecation warning. Every sentence serves a purpose: deprecation notice, atomic action, validation, usage context, and stage diagrams. Minor room for even tighter phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's deprecation status and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: why to avoid it, what it does, valid transitions, and entity types. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it correctly.

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% (4 parameters documented). The description adds semantic value by enumerating allowed statuses per entity type (draft→open→in_progress→completed, etc.), which helps understand the newStatus parameter beyond its enum definition.

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 states the tool's purpose: it atomically advances/updates the kanban status of features, stories, or criteria. It also distinguishes itself from sibling typed transition tools by explicitly deprecating itself and recommending alternatives.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when you start or finish implementing something.' It also clearly states that the tool is deprecated and that typed transition tools should be used instead, offering strong usage boundaries.

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