Set dossier status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, covering the mutation and retry-safety profile. The description adds useful workflow context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose behavioral details like allowed transitions, whether any status change can be undone, or what side effects occur beyond the status update. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 or redundancy. It is concise and immediately communicates the tool's role, though it is slightly minimal and could carry a bit more guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The schema covers all parameters, includes an enum for status, and an output schema exists, so the call shape is well defined. What is missing is explicit guidance about when this tool is appropriate versus archive_dossier and what workflow constraints apply. For a simple status-transition tool, the description is adequate but not rich.

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%, so the schema already documents dossier_id, status, and reason. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond framing the action as a workflow move, which is sufficient given the full schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Move a dossier') and a clear resource/domain ('review workflow'), so an agent understands this updates a dossier's status. It does not explicitly enumerate the statuses or fully distinguish itself from archive_dossier, but the workflow framing makes the core purpose clear.

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 phrase 'through the review workflow' implies this tool is for status transitions such as open, in_review, approved, or rejected. However, there is no explicit 'use when' or 'do not use for archiving' guidance in the description; the archive_dossier exclusion only appears in the schema's status parameter description, not in the tool description.

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