update_feature_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. It explains the behavior: updating status and optionally appending notes to next steps. It also mentions the consequence of keeping the project brain accurate, adding context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, and why it matters. No extraneous content.

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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter meanings. It does not explain error cases or return values, but given the tool's nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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 is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds semantic value by explaining what each status means in the workflow (e.g., 'in_progress' when starting). The notes parameter is described as appended to next steps, giving context beyond the schema.

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 updates a feature's status and explains the meaning of each status in the context of progress. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_feature_context which are read-only.

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 explicitly guides when to use each status: 'in_progress' when starting, 'complete' when done, 'blocked' if stuck. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the usage is well implied for a project tracking workflow.

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