update_control_status

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

With no annotations, the description adds the behavioral detail that a precondition (having assertions) must be met. It does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, idempotency, or side effects. The presence of an output schema compensates slightly, but the description could be more thorough.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisite. It is concise without unnecessary words. Minor improvement: could mention the 'not_implemented' status for completeness.

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?

The description covers the prerequisite and implies the main action, but does not mention that status can be 'not_implemented' or the effect of updating to that status. The optional notes parameter is not elaborated. Given the presence of an output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 80%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It references 'assertion_count' from another tool, which is helpful context but not directly about parameters.

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 clearly states 'Update the implementation status of a security control,' which is specific and distinguishes it from delete_control among siblings. However, it could more explicitly mention the acceptable statuses (implemented/not_implemented) as per the 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?

The description provides a prerequisite ('Requires at least one assertion before marking as implemented' and suggests checking assertion_count) but does not offer guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Since there is no directly competing sibling, this is acceptable but minimal.

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