update_file_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 implies mutation via 'Update' but does not state whether the update is partial, whether status values are restricted, whether permissions are required, or how printed_quantity is applied (absolute vs incremental). These are material gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is cleanly structured and each line addresses a parameter without wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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?

While the tool has an output schema and is relatively simple, the description omits important context: valid status values, whether both optional fields can be updated together, and the effect of omitting or nulling a parameter. It also gives no usage guidance in a broader workflow, making it incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it safely.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate via its Args section. It does define all three parameters (file_id, status, printed_quantity), but the definitions are minimal. 'Status: New status for the file' is tautological, and printed_quantity lacks semantics like whether it replaces or increments the current value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('the print status or printed quantity of a tracker file'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling update tools. It states the exact fields affected, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely implied. Sibling tools like list_trackers or update_spool_weight are not referenced.

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