update_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that 'Teammates see it instantly,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain whether this overwrites the previous status, how the status is stored, or any side effects (e.g., persistence). It is not misleading but lacks depth on the tool's internal 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 with zero waste. The purpose and parameters are in the first sentence, and usage timing and effect in the second. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 description covers the primary purpose, parameters, usage timing, and audience. It includes an output schema (though not shown here) so return values need not be explained. It does not cover edge cases like required permissions or rate limits, but for a simple status-update tool, the context provided is adequate. A 4 reflects that it is mostly complete but could mention persistence or side effects.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions 'task description, optional progress percent, optional blockers list,' which maps to the three parameters. However, it does not specify the range of progress (e.g., 0-100), the format of blockers (list of strings), or what happens when fields are omitted. Given that the schema provides no descriptions, this is a notable deficiency.

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 'Announce' and a clear resource (the agent's current work status) for the whole team. It explicitly lists the fields (task, progress, blockers), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_status or set_my_profile. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to call it: 'at session start and whenever the task changes.' It also conveys that it broadcasts to the team. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have been a 5. The guidance is clear and actionable for an agent.

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