ftrack_update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'update' without mentioning permissions, side effects, status transition validation, or the return value. It provides no behavioral context beyond what the name already implies.

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 one short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified and merely restates the tool name. It does not earn its place by adding any informative content beyond what is already evident.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain valid status IDs, whether the update is immediate, or what response format to expect. The lack of annotations and output schema makes this a minimal but insufficient description.

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%, providing basic descriptions for task_id and status_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the status of a task' directly restates the tool name ftrack_update_task_status. It does not add any specificity about how the status is updated, what a status ID is, or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like ftrack_update or ftrack_assign_user_to_task.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ftrack_update or task assignment tools. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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