Update Control Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the operation is mutating and documents a non-obvious rejection condition: marking a control implemented requires at least one assertion. It could add more about side effects or permissions, but the critical behavioral trait is covered.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core action and mutating nature are front-loaded, followed by a clearly formatted precondition block. Every sentence adds value, and the REQUIRES is emphasized without unnecessary prose.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. Combined with the input schema, it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly: required parameter names, permissible status values, and the critical assertion prerequisite. Minor gaps like error details or authentication are not essential for invoking the tool.

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 the schema already documents most parameters clearly. The description adds context around the status transition and the assertion requirement, but doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides. server_version still has no meaningful description, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Sets the control's status to implemented or not_implemented'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like refine_control or remap_control by focusing solely on implementation status. The 'Mutating' label reinforces the action without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: when updating a control's implementation status. It also names prerequisite tools and conditions — check assertion_count via get_controls and use submit_assertions before marking implemented, or the call is rejected. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus an alternative, but the guidance is clear enough.

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