update_item_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions 'QA item' but doesn't clarify the system or effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, but the bilingual parenthetical is redundant and doesn't add value. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured with usage context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'QA item' refers to, how status changes affect the system, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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 schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide examples beyond the schema's 'e.g.', or clarify semantics like what '상태' means in context.

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 'Update a QA item's status (상태 업데이트)' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('QA item's status'), but it's vague about what a 'QA item' is and doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'post_fix_update' or 'scan_qa_bugs'. The bilingual parenthetical adds no clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_fix_update' or 'scan_qa_bugs'. The description implies it's for status updates but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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