scf_update_engagement_query_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does note that the operation is a write ('write') and that invalid targets are 'refused rather than recorded', which is useful. However, it omits details about success responses, side effects, or error handling beyond refusal, leaving 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. The inclusion of actor restrictions and validation behavior is valuable and efficiently worded. Minor clarity improvements are possible but the length is appropriate.

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 write operation with four required parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what a successful transition returns, nor does it enumerate valid status transitions beyond the enum. The platform validation note helps but leaves the agent guessing about expected outcomes. More context would improve completeness.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including origins for the UUIDs. The description adds little beyond the word 'lifecycle' and does not explain the meaning or valid transitions of the status enum in context. Since the schema already carries the semantic load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Move') and resource ('an auditor query') and references its lifecycle, which distinguishes it from create/respond tools. It's specific enough for an agent to identify the operation, though 'lifecycle' is somewhat abstract and could be more explicit about status transitions.

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 indicates permissible actors ('write — editor role, or an assigned auditor') and notes that invalid transitions are refused, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like scf_respond_to_engagement_query or scf_create_engagement_query, nor when to choose this over them. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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