change_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses two non-obvious side effects (folder move, worklog append) and a pre-condition failure mode with its override flag. It omits permissions requirements, whether transitions are validated or reversible, and 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?

Two sentences, zero padding. The core action and its side effects come first, with the failure/override caveat second — exactly the right order for an agent scanning for intent and risk.

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 covers the important behavioral ground: side effects and the blocking guard. Gaps remain around valid status transitions and the return value, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, including the status enum values and the id format aliases, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of force=true restates the schema's 'start even if blocked' rather than adding new semantics, and it says nothing about the optional note parameter.

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 ('Move a task to another status') and immediately names two concrete side effects: folder relocation and a worklog entry. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like start_task or block_task/unblock_task, which overlap with the blocked-task behavior described here.

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 supplies a conditional rule ('Refuses to start a task that is blocked by open tasks unless force=true'), which implies when to use force and when the call will fail. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over start_task, block_task, or unblock_task, leaving the agent to infer routing among siblings.

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