update_task_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool requires task_id and status, returns the full updated task for confirmation. Could be slightly improved by explicitly noting the mutation is destructive, but the update nature is implied. A minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and allowed values. Every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use, prerequisites, return value. No waste.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and response. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: it specifies that task_id is required and explains how to obtain it, and lists the allowed status values (todo, in_progress, done). It also clarifies ID formats for different backends. Only missing explicit mapping of parameter names to descriptions.

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 tool moves a task to a new status (todo, in_progress, done) and lists example use cases (start, finish, reopen). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining that list_tasks should be called first to obtain the task_id.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (start/finish/reopen/progress tasks) and when to use an alternative (list_tasks if only task title or assignee is known). Also provides platform-specific notes about ID formats.

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