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. It discloses the workflow (pulls task, updates status, adds comment) and auto-set behavior. However, it does not mention authorization needs, error handling, or whether it returns the updated task, leaving gaps.

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 succinct sentences: main purpose, workflow, and one key behavior (auto-set completed_at). No fluff, front-loaded with the primary action, each sentence 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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, workflow, parameter nuances, and a key behavioral detail. It lacks error handling notes but is fairly complete for a single-purpose tool.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the workflow context (pulls task first) and clarifying that Turkish inputs are accepted for status, plus the auto-set behavior for completed_at, which goes beyond 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 clearly states the tool changes task status (Yapılacak → Devam Ediyor → Tamamlandı) and distinguishes it from siblings like update_task by specializing in status transitions. It also mentions the automatic completed_at setting, adding specificity.

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 implies this tool is for status changes but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for other updates use update_task) or provide exclusions. The usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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