task_update_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the update action but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or behavior when updating to invalid statuses. The minimal disclosure leaves significant gaps.

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 efficient, with a clear opening sentence followed by a structured args list. Each sentence adds value, though the args list could be integrated more tightly. No wasted words.

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 and the presence of an output schema (reducing the need to explain return values), the description provides adequate context. However, it could mention idempotency or partial update behavior to be fully complete for an update operation.

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 must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all parameters, including the enum values for status and the optional nature of output_data and logs. This adds value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool updates the status of a task execution, with a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('task execution status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like task_get_task_by_id or task_create_task_definition by focusing on status 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?

The description mentions it's typically used by workers, providing context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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