update_import_request_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. It mentions 'admin only' which is useful, but it does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether the update is idempotent, whether any side effects occur (e.g., triggering notifications), whether failed transitions are allowed, or what the response looks like. The tool mutates state, so without more context on effects and the rejection of invalid transitions, it is under-specified.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action, includes the valid statuses, notes the optional summary, and flags the admin-only restriction. Every part is informative, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given that this is a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks details like the workflow around status transitions (e.g., can you move from COMPLETED back to PROCESSING?), the consequences of setting a status, and any special permissions beyond 'admin'. The presence of sibling tools like list_pending_imports suggests a business process, but the description does not explain how this tool fits into it.

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 already provides full documentation for all three parameters (with descriptions), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description mentions 'optional summary of what was loaded' which aligns with the 'summary' parameter, and the status enum is self-explanatory. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but given 100% coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Mark an import request') and specifies the three possible statuses (PROCESSING, COMPLETED, FAILED). It also includes that it can optionally add a summary, and marks it as admin-only. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_pending_imports or get_import_request, the action verb 'update' and the status values make its purpose distinct enough.

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 this is used to transition import requests to a final or processing state, and notes 'admin only' as an access requirement. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other tools, but the statuses and the context of import workflows make the usage reasonably clear. As there are no direct sibling tools for updating imports, the lack of explicit comparisons is acceptable.

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