cmmn-update_stage_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses validation, automatic timestamp setting, and special behavior for completed status. However, it does not detail potential side effects (e.g., impact on other stage data) or confirm the return value.

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: two sentences followed by a list and a note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficient, with no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects and transition rules. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the return value or success confirmation, but overall it is complete given the context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds extra context: the list of valid transitions and the explanation of the 'force' parameter (bypass judge for completed status). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 updates a stage's status with CMMN transition validation and automatic timestamp setting. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cmmn-update_task_status by specifying the resource (stage) and the validation context.

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 explicitly lists valid transitions and provides a critical note about when to use an alternative tool (cmmn-claim_stage_complete_with_evidence) for 'completed' status with acceptance criteria, or to use force=true. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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