Move a Zentra task to a new status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it updates status, without mentioning whether the operation is idempotent, whether status transitions are validated, what happens on invalid transitions, or what is returned. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to purpose and parameter identification.

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 is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response looks like, possible error conditions, or whether status transitions are restricted. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 mentions 'status' and 'by id', identifying the roles of both parameters. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own names and enum, such as transition rules or format expectations.

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 'Updates an existing task's status by id' clearly specifies the action (updates), the resource (task), the attribute (status), and the identifier (id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools zentra_task_create (new task) and zentra_task_list (read tasks).

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?

Usage context is implied: the verb 'updates' and 'existing task' indicate this is for modifying an already created task, not for creating or listing. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusionary guidance is given, unlike a tool that names a sibling alternative.

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