set_story_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that this tool writes only the local tracker-sync artifact and never external trackers or criteria. This reveals side-effect scope clearly, though it does not detail permissions, reversibility, or return behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simple setter with an output schema, the description adequately covers scope, status values, and side-effect limitations. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., story must exist) or error cases, but these are not critical for basic usage given the output schema exists and sibling tools are available.

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 compensate. It adds crucial semantics by restricting status to 'doing | review | done', which is not in the schema as an enum. However, it does not explain the optional comment parameter or clarify the story_id format beyond its obvious meaning.

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 begins with 'Record story progress', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also enumerates the valid status values (doing | review | done) and explicitly scopes the tool to local story state, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_story or spec_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?

The description clearly states when this tool is appropriate (recording local story progress) and provides explicit exclusions: 'never a configured external tracker, and never the approved criteria.' However, it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a full 5.

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