update_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the validation constraint for COMPLETED status, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention error handling, response format, or whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated).

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes essential information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical constraint. No redundant or unnecessary phrasing.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the validation constraint. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success/failure or the response format. Given the tool's complexity (status updates with validation), it could benefit from slightly more behavioral context.

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 already documents both parameters completely. The description adds context about how the 'status' parameter interacts with exit criteria validation, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Update task status') and adds important context about exit criteria validation. It distinguishes this tool from other update tools like update_project or update_task_dependencies by focusing specifically on status changes with validation rules.

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 explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool: 'cannot mark COMPLETED unless all exit criteria are COMPLETE.' This gives clear constraints for the COMPLETED status, helping the agent understand when this operation will fail versus when to use alternatives like update_exit_criteria first.

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