update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses automatic real-time notification and support for progress reporting. However, it omits other behaviors such as idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens with the result field on completion/failure.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding key behavioral notes without any redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and notification behavior but lacks details on result usage, error handling, and idempotency. It is adequate 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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking the 'in_progress' status with the 'progress' parameter ('支持中途汇报进度（in_progress + progress）'), providing semantic connection beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 '更新任务执行状态' (update task execution status), specifying the verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings like get_task_status by emphasizing real-time notification and progress reporting.

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 gives context for when to use the tool: for updating status with real-time notification and intermediate progress reporting. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_task_status for read-only access.

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