Update task 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose and reveals nothing about transition validation, reversibility, whether blocked_reason is required when moving to 'blocked', idempotency semantics, or audit attribution - all material for a state-mutation 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 single sentence is terse and free of filler, but for an 8-parameter state-transition tool this brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It front-loads the action but earns little else.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 23 siblings including several state-transition tools, the description is far too thin. It omits state-machine context, prerequisites, and field relationships an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with 8 parameters, yet the description adds nothing about parameter meaning. Optional fields like reason, source, agent_id, session_id, idempotency_key, and blocked_reason are left to name-guessing; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('moves') with a clear resource ('task') and scope ('between states'), which implicitly distinguishes it from update_task (field edits). However, it never names any sibling and the phrase 'through the running backlog API' adds no semantic content.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings that also transition task state, such as claim_task, release_task, restore_task, or even update_task. An agent has no way to decide which state-change tool to pick.

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