status_item

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses an authorization constraint ('Owner only'), the downstream effect that the status page and brief render from these items, and the audit behavior that the event keeps the old text after an update. It does not say whether close is irreversible or what the response looks like, but the disclosure of auth and history semantics is well above baseline.

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?

Front-loads the primary action and packs the remaining modes into tight parentheticals with no filler; every clause carries information. The nested parentheses make the middle sentence slightly dense to parse on a first read.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers modes, auth and side effects but omits three parameters entirely and never explains the item lifecycle (can a closed item be reopened?) or what a successful call returns. Adequate to act on the covered paths, incomplete for the rest.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully defines four of them (action values, the four allowed kind values, text, item_id for update/close) but leaves domain, refs and task_id completely unexplained, which is a substantial gap given they are not optional in practice for add.

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 and then enumerates the three action modes with their required inputs: add (kind: state|open|blocker|next, text), update (item_id, text, optional kind), close (item_id). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like patch_section, patch_header, log_append and set_decision_status because the resource is 'status item' and the modes are explicit.

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 action-by-action breakdown effectively says when to use each mode, including the constraint that update applies to 'an open one'. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g. versus log_append or set_decision_status), so routing must still be inferred from names.

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