update_status

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the HTTP method and tags, without mentioning idempotency, error cases, or consequences of the update. The behavioral impact is assumed.

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 three lines, but the inclusion of the full HTTP path and tags may be extraneous for an MCP tool. Still, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and a simple update operation with two parameters, the description minimally conveys the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details about return values or error handling, making it adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the example 'Open' for the 'name' parameter, which is helpful, but otherwise repeats schema field descriptions ('(path parameter)', '(body)') without deeper meaning.

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 Conversation Status' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (status), and the URL and tags provide additional context. However, there is potential ambiguity with the sibling tool 'update_conversation_status' which might confuse the agent about which tool updates conversation-level statuses.

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 create_status, delete_status, or update_conversation_status. The agent must infer usage from context alone, which is insufficient.

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