set_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses lifecycle gating rules, but says nothing about what happens when a precondition fails, what `force` overrides, whether the change is reversible, or what the call returns.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the lifecycle constraints appended. It is efficient, though the packed clause structure makes the prerequisites slightly hard to parse.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the lifecycle gates. The undocumented parameters (`force`, `superseded_by`, `collection`) and failure/return behavior leave meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 40%: `force`, `collection`, and `superseded_by` are undocumented. The description does not compensate at all for those gaps, nor does it clarify the accepted status values or aliases beyond restating the lifecycle gates.

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 and resource ("Change status") and adds the distinguishing note that lifecycle rules are enforced. It partially separates itself from siblings by pointing "done" at `complete`, though it never names what entity the status belongs to (initiatives are only implied via the `ref` schema text).

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 preconditions ("designed needs no blocking open questions; in-progress needs ready") and an explicit alternative for one case ("done goes through `complete`"). It lacks any when-not guidance for the other statuses such as deferred, abandoned, or superseded.

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