tracker_update_status

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

The annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds context by explaining the return value and the distinction between tracked_job_id and other IDs. This helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 structured with headers and bullet points, making it easy to scan. It contains no redundant phrasing; the sub-status enumeration is necessary because it depends on the chosen status.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters with strong schema coverage, output schema exists), the description fully addresses input requirements, output, and a critical ID disambiguation. It leaves no critical gaps.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including the same enum lists and ID guidance. The description restates the schema content without adding new semantic meaning beyond formatting.

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's function with a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('tracked job'), and the focus on 'status' distinguishes it from sibling tools like tracker_update or tracker_add. No ambiguity.

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?

It implies usage for changing a job's status, and the detailed enum of statuses clarifies the exact scenarios. It does not explicitly contrast with tracker_update, but the specific purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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