SupplySources_updateSupplySourceStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation ('Update the status') and adds an ambiguous deployment note. It does not mention permissions, allowed status transitions, side effects, reversibility, or response 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 short but poorly structured: 'Catalog entry.' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here.' are non-helpful filler, and the actual operational instruction is buried at the end. The substantive sentence earns its place, but the rest wastes space.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, this description is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot determine required arguments, allowed status values, environment semantics, or expected results, making the definition barely more useful than a stub.

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?

The schema is effectively empty but allows additional properties, so an agent has no reliable parameter documentation. The description does not specify the supply-source identifier or the accepted status values; it only hints at the concept of a status without giving invocation details.

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 core sentence 'Update the status of a supply source' names a specific verb, resource, and the aspect being changed, which distinguishes it from siblings like SupplySources_updateSupplySource. However, the preceding phrases 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' add confusion about where the operation actually executes.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of SupplySources_updateSupplySource, SupplySources_archiveSupplySource, or other related supply-source tools. The deployment remark hints at an environment constraint but does not clarify selection criteria.

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