feegow_change_proposal_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature and HTTP method, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or constraints like whether transitions between specific statuses are allowed.

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 and front-loaded with the main action, but the status mapping could be better formatted (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 simple status-update tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, status mappings, write requirement, and HTTP method, but omits error scenarios or response format.

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 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds value by mapping status_id values to labels (e.g., 1=Aguardando aprovação), which aids correct parameter selection.

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 changes the status of a proposal, lists all possible status values with their mappings, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., feegow_list_proposals) by specifying it is a write operation.

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 implies when to use (to alter proposal status) and notes the prerequisite FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools for similar tasks.

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