ruddur_update_heading_status

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds the auth requirement 'Requires scope: content.manage', which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, or what happens when a status is updated. Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive mutation.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope requirement. It contains no filler and every part adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema and a free-form body, yet the description provides no context about lifecycle statuses, valid status values, expected request format, or consequences. The description is too thin to fully guide the agent in using this tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, including details for body, confirm, and path parameters. The tool description offers no additional parameter semantics. The body description is generic and does not clarify expected fields like 'status', but the baseline of 3 applies given full 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 states a clear action: 'Update a Heading lifecycle status.' It uses a specific verb and names the resource, distinguishing it from sibling ruddur_update_heading, which implies general heading updates.

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 given for when to choose this tool over ruddur_update_heading or other heading-related tools. The only usage hint is the required scope, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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