update_path_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a state-changing operation but does not discuss side effects, error conditions, permissions, or reversibility. The description is minimal.

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?

Description is concise: one-line purpose followed by argument docs. Front-loaded and no fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list) but efficient overall.

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?

Covers core purpose and parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites. Given the existence of an output schema, return values are less critical, but behavioral gaps remain. Adequate for a simple update, but not fully 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 coverage is 0%, so description adds some meaning: path_id as Attack path ID, status as Target status with examples (acknowledged, closed, etc.), reason as optional. However, it does not specify exact allowed values for status, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Tool name and description clearly state it updates an attack path's triage status. The description uses specific verb 'Update' and resource 'attack path's triage status', distinguishing it from sibling tools like escalate_path and get_attack_path.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention when to use this over escalate_path or update_ticket_status, nor provides any context for appropriate use.

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