update_study_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and parameter definitions, adding no context about allowed status transitions, validation rules, side effects, or permission requirements. It provides no extra behavioral insight beyond the function name.

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 extremely concise, using a clean purpose statement followed by a standard Args block. Every element serves a purpose, and there is no wasted language or redundant information.

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 state-changing operation, the description is minimally complete for parameter understanding but lacks crucial context about study lifecycle rules, such as whether transitions between specific statuses are restricted or what the output schema contains. Given the existence of an output schema and sibling update tools, more behavioral context is needed for safe and correct usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by defining study_id as 'the unique identifier of the study' and status with the enumerated values 'Draft', 'Active', 'Paused', 'Completed'. This gives agents the controlled vocabulary missing from the schema, though it could add format details for study_id.

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 'Change the status of a study' with a specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_study_name and update_study_details. It is unambiguous and directly describes the tool's function.

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 versus alternatives, nor any context about study lifecycle workflows, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention how this differs from other update tools or when a status change is appropriate.

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