set_story_status

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that 'complete_story' enforces acceptance criteria, appends a summary note, and removes the story from the backlog, which clarifies the implications of choosing between tools. Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description complements this by detailing the return values and workflow differences, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear usage guidelines and return value details in just two sentences. Every sentence adds critical information—distinguishing from siblings and specifying outputs—with zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, destructive operation), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and return values. Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return structure ({story_id, old_status, new_status, backlog_updated}), compensating adequately. With annotations providing safety and idempotency hints, the description fills all necessary gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters. The description reinforces the 'status' parameter by listing the allowed values and referencing 'complete_story' for 'done', but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, where minimal additional parameter explanation is expected.

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 specific action ('Update the status of a story') and enumerates the exact status values (draft, in-progress, blocked, deferred). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'complete_story' by specifying what statuses it handles versus what the sibling does, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for updating to draft, in-progress, blocked, or deferred) and when not to use it (to mark a story done, use 'complete_story' instead). It names the alternative tool and explains the functional differences, offering clear decision criteria for the agent.

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