update_exit_criteria

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 states the tool updates exit criteria by marking them as COMPLETE or INCOMPLETE, which implies a mutation but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update exit criteria for a task') and adds specific detail ('marking individual criteria as COMPLETE or INCOMPLETE'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens on success/failure, whether updates are idempotent, or how to interpret the response. For a 2-parameter update operation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (task_id as UUID, exit_criteria as JSON string/array with criteria, status, comment). The description adds minimal value by hinting at the status values (COMPLETE/INCOMPLETE), but this is already in the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('exit criteria for a task'), specifying what gets updated. It distinguishes the action from siblings like 'update_task_status' or 'update_action_plan' by focusing on exit criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is about marking criteria as COMPLETE/INCOMPLETE in the context of a list, which could be slightly more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'update_task_status' for broader updates. Without such context, the agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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