upservice_update_task_status

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent. Description adds return value format and condition for reason parameter, but does not elaborate on side effects or authorization requirements.

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?

Description is very concise, front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear Args and Returns section. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Covers input parameters and return format adequately. Lacks details on status transition validation or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, it is mostly complete.

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 already describes parameters with details. The description adds a succinct summary and explicitly states reason is needed for cancel/reject, which adds marginal value beyond the schema's 'typically required' phrasing.

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 the tool changes a task's status with examples (completed, cancelled, in progress). It differentiates from siblings like upservice_update_task by focusing on status only, but does not explicitly exclude other update tools.

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?

Provides implicit usage guidance by indicating that reason is needed for cancel/reject statuses. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus upservice_update_task or other siblings.

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