update_control_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation 'Mutating' and warns that the call is rejected if prerequisites are not met. It does not detail permissions, idempotency, or side effects on other entities, but for a status change the key behavioral risk (rejection) is clearly disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the action, the second specifies allowed values, and the third provides a critical warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 primary behavior, the two status values, and a critical precondition. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the required parameter 'server_version' lacks any description (in both schema and description), leaving some ambiguity about its purpose, but this is a minor gap given the overall clarity.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial cross-parameter semantics by linking 'status' to the control's assertion_count and explaining the prerequisite relationship, which is not evident from the individual parameter descriptions. It also implies that implementation_notes are secondary to the status change.

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 opens with 'Update the implementation status of a security control' – a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It further clarifies the exact statuses ('implemented'/'not_implemented'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_control or refine_control, which perform other operations.

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 preconditions: 'Marking a control "implemented" REQUIRES at least one assertion... check its assertion_count (via get_controls) first and submit assertions with submit_assertions if it is zero, or the call is rejected.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, when to defer, and which sibling tools (get_controls, submit_assertions) are necessary prerequisites.

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