update_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutating PUT, that a `status:manage` permission is required, and that built-in statuses are protected from modification. It stops short of describing failure/error behavior or what happens to existing conversations mapped to a re-categorized status.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and the key restriction, with no marketing filler. The trailing 'Tags: Status and priority' and endpoint line are administrative rather than instructive, but they are brief.

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 required-3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers permissions and protected-status constraints but omits side effects (what re-mapping a category does to assigned conversations) and any error/response expectations. Adequate to call it correctly, not enough to call it confidently.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains `id` as a path parameter and `category` as the mapping target. The description adds only the indirect note that protected default statuses constrain valid targets, without elaborating on the `name` length or category enum semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update Conversation Status') plus the concrete endpoint PUT /api/v1/statuses/{id}, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling update_conversation_status, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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?

It gives one hard precondition — default statuses (Open, Snoozed, Resolved, Closed) cannot be updated — which is genuinely useful exclusion guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over update_conversation_status or create_status, so alternative selection is left implicit.

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