updateStatus

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The description carries the full burden, and it fails entirely.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is not concise in a helpful sense. Every sentence should earn its place, but this two-word phrase provides no actionable information, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity of having 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not clarify what the tool returns, what the status field represents, or any constraints on input values.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters 'id', 'newStatus', or 'message'. The agent receives no guidance on what values these parameters accept (e.g., possible statuses or message format).

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?

Description 'Update status' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name. It fails to specify what kind of status is being updated (e.g., task status, system status, user status) and provides no verb or resource differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, when not to, or any alternatives. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'updateTask' and 'bump_task_priority', the agent has no basis to choose this tool over others.

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