update_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update task status', giving no information about side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or special behavior like the phase auto-resolve feature mentioned in the schema. It fails to convey important behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a self-explanatory name.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description offers almost no context about what happens after the update, what the return value looks like, or how the many optional fields behave. It is incomplete for such a complex tool, lacking details that would help an agent understand the tool's full impact.

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 all 10 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's high coverage. The existing parameter descriptions are terse but sufficient.

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 'Update task status in Google Sheets' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (task status), and the mention of Google Sheets adds context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task by focusing specifically on status, though it doesn't mention that it can also update category, priority, blockers, etc., which slightly undersells its scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives such as update_task, block_task, or start_task. It simply states what it does without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended usage scenarios.

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