update_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the valid statuses, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return behavior. This is a partial disclosure 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 sentence plus a list of statuses. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with only two parameters, the description covers the core purpose and allowed statuses. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, error handling, or preconditions. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and no enums. The description compensates by enumerating valid statuses for the 'status' parameter, but it does not describe 'task_id' beyond its name. This adds meaningful value for one parameter but leaves the other under-specified.

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 the action ('Update task status') with a specific verb and resource. It also lists valid statuses, which adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task and list_tasks_by_user.

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 implies usage (updating status on an existing task) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, though the sibling tools are clearly different operations.

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