quire.updateStatus

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

Annotations provide idempotenthint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or reversibility. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not expand on them.

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 very short (8 words), which is concise but lacks important structural details such as parameter roles. It is not overly verbose, but its brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to identify the status (projectId and current value), the uniqueness constraint on newValue, or what the response looks like. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema, which partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description is misleading about the 'value' parameter. It lists 'value' as an updatable attribute, but the schema uses it as a required identifier. It does not clarify the roles of projectId and value in identifying the status, nor that newValue is the actual updatable numeric field.

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 it updates a custom status's name, value, or color, clearly indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like createStatus and deleteStatus. However, it ambiguously uses 'value' for both the identifier and the updatable field, which could confuse the agent.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies it is for updating existing statuses, but does not state when not to use it or compare with create/delete tools.

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