update_phase_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that setting status to 'done' auto-records completion time, which is valuable. However, does not mention if the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or returns data. Adequate for a simple state update.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loading the purpose and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the action and valid states, second gives usage context and a notable side effect.

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?

No output schema, but description covers core purpose, valid statuses, side effect of 'done', and usage context. Lacks mention of error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., phase must exist), or return value. Still sufficient for a simple tool with few parameters.

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 all 3 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the auto-record behavior for 'done' status, but that is a behavioral trait rather than parameter-specific detail. Minimal added value over 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?

Clearly states the action ('Update the status of a project phase'), resource ('project phase'), and lists valid statuses. Distinguishes from siblings like 'update_task_status' by focusing on phases and mentioning the auto-record behavior for 'done'.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to progress phases as work is completed. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions, but the context is clear for typical workflow.

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