Manage Status Updates

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing: no note on whether create mutates state meaningfully, no pagination behavior for list despite `first`/`after` being present, and no auth or rate-limit context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's scope, with no filler. It is efficient but so sparse that the brevity comes at the cost of needed detail.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with 11% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin: an agent gets no help on which parameters each action requires or what the operations return. The low coverage plus multi-action dispatch makes this a significant gap.

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 11% across 9 parameters — only `action` is documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats that same mapping. Nothing explains body, status, projectId, statusUpdateId, startDate/targetDate, or the first/after pagination pair, so the agent must guess the meaning and required combinations of seven undocumented parameters.

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 set (create, list, get) and resource (project Status Updates), which an agent can distinguish from sibling tools like manage_project or manage_issues. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or say what a status update is.

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 only guidance is 'Use the `action` field to select the operation,' which restates the required enum parameter rather than when to use this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer manage_project or manage_issues, or of prerequisites such as needing a projectId before calling create.

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