taskguard_update_criterion

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that the tool updates status and that evidence should be linked for met criteria, but it omits other behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or what happens to previous evidence. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's implications.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary use, and the second adds a condition. Information is front-loaded effectively. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 11 sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the overall workflow, how this tool relates to others (e.g., 'taskguard_add_evidence'), or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use it reliably.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains the 'status' enum and hints at 'evidenceIds' linking, but it does not elaborate on 'sessionId', 'criterionId', or 'rationale'. The description adds some value but is insufficient to fully clarify the 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates the status of a done criterion to 'met', 'not_met', 'pending', or 'waived'. It specifies the resource (criterion) and action (update). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'taskguard_verify_done', though the verb and context hint at uniqueness.

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 to call: when a criterion's status changes. It also adds a condition about linking evidence in strict verification. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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