update_prospect_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it discloses a meaningful non-obvious behavior: setting status to 'new' is rejected if the prospect has already received outreach in that project. It does not cover authorization or side effects, but the rejection rule is valuable and reduces surprise for agents.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral caveat is added immediately after, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple three-parameter update operation, the description gives the core purpose and a key constraint. It does not explain return behavior or parameter meanings in depth, but the tool complexity is low and the provided information covers the main workflow gap.

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 only 33% (only projectId is documented). The description adds meaning only for the 'new' status value and does not explain the other enum values or the prospectId parameter, leaving significant semantic gaps for a low-coverage 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 ('a prospect's status within a project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_prospect, which is broader, and update_outreach_status, which focuses on outreach rather than prospect status.

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 implies its use case by scoping status changes to a project and highlights a special condition when 'new' is rejected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as update_prospect, update_outreach_status, or set_prospect_priority, nor does it mention when it should not be used.

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