epf_update_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Bearer auth is required and defines the status codes, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether updating to C triggers any post-processing, whether status changes are reversible, or what happens if a file is already in a terminal state). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is compact: two sentences plus a status legend. It front-loads the action and auth requirement, then packs the enum meanings efficiently. No wasted words, though the status legend could arguably be considered schema duplication since the enum values are already in the schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It tells the agent what statuses mean and that auth is required, but doesn't explain the expected outcome, error conditions, or whether this is part of a larger workflow (e.g., must be called after epf_download_epf_file). The sibling tools suggest a download lifecycle, but the description doesn't connect to it.

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 does explain the status enum values (N=new, S=download started, X=cancelled, C=completed), which adds meaning beyond the raw enum. However, it doesn't explain fileId semantics beyond the schema's minLength, and the description doesn't fully cover the parameter semantics for fileId. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the status explanation adds value but fileId remains underdocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update file status') and enumerates the status values, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like epf_download_list or epf_download_epf_file. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the action is clear enough to differentiate.

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 description implies usage context: it's for updating the status of a file in a download workflow, with statuses N/S/X/C mapping to lifecycle stages. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the status enum and 'Bearer auth required' give some context. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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