Set Job Status

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

The description discloses the effects of each status (e.g., 'applied' stamps date, 'discovered' undoes to board) and that the tool persists changes. With no annotations, these details are essential and well-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 sentences front-load the purpose and progressively add details: status list, behavior, notes, and usage context. No wasted words.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: parameter semantics, behavioral side effects, and typical usage (review UI). It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by explaining the meaning and behavioral impact of each status enum value and the optional notes parameter, going beyond the schema's simple type definitions.

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 tool's purpose: triage a job by setting its status to one of four enumerated values, each with a specific meaning. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_status by focusing on a single job.

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 indicates the tool is called by the review UI and usable directly, but does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives like bulk_status. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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