Actions Update Action Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the valid statuses and the required approval precondition, and states the return is success or an error message. However, it does not mention whether the update is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing status, or any permission requirements. The approval precondition is valuable behavioral context, but the description could go further.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, valid values, and the critical precondition. The most important usage constraint is front-loaded after the purpose statement. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (approval first) and the valid inputs. It lacks details on edge cases like whether status transitions are restricted, but the output schema and simple parameter set keep the gap small.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the valid status values, which are also in the schema's status description, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('status of a Mitti action'), and enumerates the valid status values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like actions_update_action_title and actions_create_action.

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 instructs to call request_approval first and wait for the user's decision before using this tool. This is a clear when-to-use directive that prevents misuse and distinguishes it from the approval workflow.

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