update_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the audience (the peer sees the status) and update cadence, but says nothing about persistence, whether prior status is overwritten, or the response shape for a state-mutating call.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by a crisp usage rule. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the name.

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?

For a low-stakes status-update tool whose full schema is self-documenting and which has no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose and cadence adequately. It only lacks the peer-visibility/overwrite details an agent might want for a mutation call.

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 100%, so all five parameters (task, project, blockers, progress, next_step) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: updating one's own work status so the peer knows what you're doing. Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling send_message, which covers similar 'tell the peer something' territory.

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?

Gives concrete cadence guidance ('每完成一步都应更新' – update after each completed step), which tells the agent when to call it. No exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. versus send_message) are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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