update_request_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a mutation and a validity caveat, but it does not explain side effects, error behavior, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to the request's progression when status is set directly.

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-load the core purpose and then provide the key usage caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool this is minimally viable: it states purpose, usage boundary, and a precondition. However, it omits what a successful response looks like, what happens on invalid statuses, and how to discover valid target phases, so an agent may still have to infer critical details.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond warning about target-phase validity, which is only partially tied to the status parameter.

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 action ('Advance or set a request's status') with a specific resource and signal that this is a status-changing operation. It also distinguishes itself from advance_step by naming the sibling, which helps an agent avoid confusion.

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 text gives explicit routing guidance: prefer advance_step for workflow transitions and use this tool only when the target phase is known to be valid. This makes the decision boundary between siblings clear.

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