gavaza_requests_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the allowed values for new_status, which is useful, but does not state side effects (e.g., overwriting, irreversibility), required permissions, or any result details. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifying the only non-obvious parameter. Every word earns its place, no fillers or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers the core operation and parameter constraints. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. It lacks notes on permissions or side effects, but the simplicity and clarity of the tool reduce the need for more.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for new_status by listing valid values (open, in_progress, completed, rejected), but request_id is left with only its name, which may be insufficient for users to know what identifier is expected (e.g., UUID vs integer). Partial compensation only.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('data subject request'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like gavaza_requests_new (create) and gavaza_requests_list (read). It precisely states the action.

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 context is clear: updating the status of an existing request. It implicitly contrasts with creation and listing siblings. It also constrains valid use by enumerating allowed statuses, providing practical guidance. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, but the intent is unambiguous.

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