set_task_status

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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It discloses that task_id accepts multiple reference formats and lists valid statuses. However, it does not describe side effects, error handling, or whether the tool is idempotent.

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?

Two sentences and a bullet list are extremely concise. The purpose is stated first, followed by parameter details in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has only two parameters and an output schema. The description covers input semantics and valid statuses. It doesn't explain output, but the output schema covers that. A minor gap is not mentioning that it is an alternative to update_task for status changes, but the wrapper concept implies it.

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 0%, so description adds substantial value. For task_id, it explains multiple reference forms beyond schema's string type. For status, it lists all allowed values, which the schema does not as an enum. This fully compensates for the lack of 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 description clearly states it is a convenience wrapper around update_task for status changes, specifying the verb 'set status' and the resource 'task'. It differentiates from sibling update_task by focusing on status-only updates.

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 implicitly guides usage for status changes only, listing accepted statuses. It doesn't explicitly exclude other updates, but the context of being a wrapper conveys when to use this tool versus update_task.

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