update_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool mutates status and current task, but does not mention whether omitting current_task clears an existing value, what happens on invalid status (though enum covers it), or any other side effects. This is a minimal but adequate level of transparency for a simple status update.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The second sentence provides usage triggers without redundancy. No waste or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. It does not explain return values or error cases, but no output schema exists and the tool is low-complexity. Slight gap: could clarify the effect of not providing current_task, but the description is reasonably complete for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'status and current task' but does not add semantic nuance beyond the schema, such as interdependencies or formatting requirements. It neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('this agent's status and current task'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or register_agent. The purpose is unambiguous and directly maps to the tool's name.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'when starting a new task, getting blocked, or completing work.' This gives concrete trigger scenarios and implies a clear workflow context, making the usage guidance actionable.

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