update_feedback_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: permission is role-dependent on the dock, and the server rejects unauthorized transitions. It stops short of describing side effects (e.g., notifications) or whether transitions are validated/idempotent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and statuses, then the precondition, then the permission caveat. No filler.

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 undocumented parameters, the description covers when to call it and the permission model well. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'id' parameter and any post-transition effects, which are minor.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It re-states the status enum (already in the schema) and implies a pin/workflow context but never explains what 'id' identifies (feedback id vs pin id) or how statuses relate to one another. Partial compensation only.

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?

Specific verb ('Move a pin') plus resource with the full set of workflow statuses enumerated, so the agent immediately understands this is a state-transition tool. It is cleanly separable from the read/reply siblings (list_feedback, get_feedback, reply_to_feedback).

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?

Explicit timing guidance ('Call this after you have actually made the fix') tells the agent the precondition for invoking it. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but the sibling set makes the boundary obvious.

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