update_task_status

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

No annotations provided. Description only says 'create or update', implying mutation but not disclosing side effects, auth requirements, or what happens to existing data. For a tool with 8 optional parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence is concise but under-specified. It is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful than a longer, more informative description.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no annotations, the description provides only a minimal function statement. With no guidance on output or parameter interactions, the description is incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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%. Description adds no explanations for any of the 8 parameters. Parameter names (task_id, status, etc.) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description states 'crea o actualiza tareas del proyecto' (create or update project tasks), but tool name is 'update_task_status', which suggests only status updates. This inconsistency reduces clarity. It does identify the verb and resource, but the scope mismatch limits effectiveness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include create_project, but no differentiation is provided. Context signals show 8 parameters with zero required, yet no instructions on typical usage.

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