update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds a valuable side effect: 'triggers a real-time notification to users viewing the project.' It doesn't dwell on permissions or transition rules, but this is acceptable for a simple status update.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds the side effect. No filler words and the most critical info is front-loaded.

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 status-update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and valid values. It doesn't state the return value, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond restating the status enum, which is already present in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Change' with the resource 'task' and explicitly lists the three valid status values. This clearly distinguishes it from the broader update_task tool and other siblings like start_working/stop_working.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives/exclusions are provided. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but it doesn't state when to prefer this over update_task or start_working/stop_working.

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