Set project status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious side effect — that 'done' stamps a completion date — which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits whether the change is reversible, whether it overwrites a prior status, permission requirements, and the error behavior for an unknown ref, leaving real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences with the action and the valid status set front-loaded, followed by the one notable side effect. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers status semantics and the completion-date side effect but omits failure modes, permissions, and what the tool returns. It is minimally viable rather than 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 description coverage is 50% (ref is documented as 'Project path or title' in the schema; status is an undocumented enum). The description re-lists the enum values but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's enum, and says nothing about ref resolution ambiguity (path vs. title collision). At 50% coverage this is only marginally additive.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) and resource (a project's status), and enumerates the accepted status values, so an agent can tell it performs a status mutation on a project. It does not name or contrast itself with the related project tools (create_project, list_projects), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 says what it does but never says when to use it, what prerequisites exist (must the project already exist), or which sibling to use for adjacent jobs like creating a project. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all.

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