update_execution_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutation and return JSON shape (execution_rid, new_status, message), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Given the simplicity of a status update, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with an Args/Returns structure, front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary. No redundant jargon or filler text.

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 presence of an output schema and simple parameters, the description covers all necessary details including parameter semantics and return shape. It does not explicitly connect to the broader execution lifecycle, but that gap is minor for this tool's scope.

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 coverage from the description is 100% despite the structured schema being minimal. It defines valid values for 'status' and clarifies that 'message' is a progress or error description, adding meaning that the bare schema (just two string properties) lacks.

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 'Update the execution status with a progress message', clearly identifying the specific action (update) and resource (execution status), while the listed status values (pending, running, completed, failed) further distinguish it from lifecycle siblings like start_execution, stop_execution, and cancel_task.

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 implies when to use the tool (when updating execution status), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as set_execution_description or cancel_task. It lacks exclusions or decision criteria.

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