set_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: strict validation against the initiative's board registry with unknown statuses refused. It omits permissions/authorization needs, reversibility, and what happens to any prior status, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and the field set, then the validation constraint and the sibling relationship. No filler sentences.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the key parameter's validation semantics, and the sibling relationship. It leaves out authorization requirements and return/confirmation behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that `status` is a board column key validated against the initiative's board registry and that `initiative` supplies that registry. This goes beyond restating the schema fields.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Move a task to a board column') and the exact field it sets ('status:<key>'), and explicitly positions itself against a sibling ('The general form of `done`'). An agent can distinguish this from `done` without opening either schema.

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?

Frames the tool as the generalized version of `done`, which gives an agent a clear routing cue between the two. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule or naming other alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full guidance.

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