scf_update_engagement_query_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds useful context by identifying it as a write operation, restricting it to org members or assigned auditors, and declaring that invalid transitions are refused. This is consistent with the annotations and gives an agent clear behavioral expectations.

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 a single tight sentence with a compact transition table; every part earns its place and the core action 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?

All parameters are documented in the schema and the state machine is fully specified, so an agent has the preconditions and constraints needed to call the tool correctly. It omits return-value details, but no output schema exists and the operation's side effects are sufficiently characterized for a status update.

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 four parameters, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no per-parameter detail, which is acceptable at the baseline given full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('auditor query') and spells out the lifecycle transitions, making the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the related scf_respond_to_engagement_query, but the transition model is enough to understand what the operation does.

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 allowed transition matrix and the 'write' permission indicate when the tool applies, and 'Others are refused' sets a boundary. However, it doesn't name alternatives like scf_respond_to_engagement_query or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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