update_study_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what statuses can be set, which is already in the schema enum. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether it is idempotent, what happens on invalid task_id, or any side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the action, target, and allowed values efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 parameters and an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. However, for an update operation with no annotations, the description is minimal and lacks context about expected behavior on success/failure or prerequisites, leaving it adequate but with gaps.

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 repeats the status enum values but does not explain task_id beyond its name. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no further semantic meaning, so it fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Set' clearly indicates the action, and 'study task status' identifies the resource. It further specifies the allowed values (pending, in_progress, completed), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_study_task or list_study_tasks.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: you would use this when you need to change the status of a study task. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like create_study_task, so it stops at implied rather than explicit.

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