update_status

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: pushes immediately, auto-annotates with changed_files on 'done', and notes are for a partner. It could add details on reversibility or error handling, but the side-effect disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then behavioral details, then alternative tools. No fluff; every clause adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and alternatives. Output schema exists so return values need not be described. Complete for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so by defining 'status' (with an example transition) and 'note' (for the partner). It doesn't enumerate all allowed statuses, but the example provides sufficient guidance.

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?

Clearly states the tool updates your own claim's status, with a concrete example and optional note attachment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming release() and finish() as alternatives for different workflows.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'To drop a claim without finishing it, use release(); to finish AND open a PR, use finish().' Also implies the constraint that you can only update your own claim.

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