team_time_set_status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: optimistic concurrency (it will not silently overwrite a stale version) and a concrete side effect ('Completion may stop the key creator's matching timer'). That side-effect disclosure is exactly what an agent needs before calling a destructive mutation. It does not say what happens on a version mismatch (error vs. no-op) or what the response returns.

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?

Four short clauses, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety warning at the end. Slightly dense jargon ('discovered workflow status', 'key creator') costs a bit of readability but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the concurrency contract and one side effect but omits error behavior on stale versions, the meaning of `result`, and how to obtain valid statusIds or current versions. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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%, so the description carries the load. It meaningfully explains claimId (only when claimed), expectedVersion/expectedWorkflowVersion (must reflect observed state, never stale) and statusId (must be a discovered workflow status). It leaves the required taskId and the optional `result` parameter entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource combination ('Move to a discovered workflow status') is specific enough to identify a status-transition operation on a task, and the mention of task/workflow versions distinguishes it from siblings like team_time_complete_task or team_time_update_task. It stops short of naming the object being moved (a task) or pointing at team_time_workflow as the source of valid statuses.

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?

'Include claimId if claimed' is a real conditional-use rule, and 'Never automatically overwrite a stale version' implies the version-check contract. However, the description never states when to use this tool rather than team_time_complete_task or team_time_update_task, nor where to obtain a 'discovered' status or the observed versions.

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