update_task_status

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

Discloses two distinct backend behaviors: direct DB update for modern tasks vs. tag swapping on phase files for legacy workflows. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately, though it omits error conditions or permission 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?

Four sentences, each with a clear purpose: statement of action, workflowId behavior, backend modes, usage hints. Concise without redundancy, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points for usage hints).

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 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: core operation, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances. Missing details like error handling or exact response format, but the tool's behavior is well-explained for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds valuable context: the role of workflowId (omit for cross-workflow resolution), the purpose of priority (only when changing), and the special behavior of phaseFileId for legacy workflows. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 starts with "Update the status of a task," which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like update_task (general update) and update_phase_status (different resource) by focusing solely on status changes.

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 guidance on when to use each status value (e.g., 'Use in_progress when starting work') and clarifies the optional workflowId usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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