tasks_set_status

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: parent statuses are derived automatically, blocking requires a reason, and cascade_down applies the status to all leaves below a task or sprint. It does not cover permissions or response behavior, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then quickly covers derived parent behavior, blocking reasons, cascade_down, and the id/ids constraint. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 status-mutation tool with rich schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the important side effects: derived parent statuses and cascading to leaves. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the key behavioral risks are addressed.

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 already documents each parameter. The description adds a useful constraint that exactly one of id or ids must be passed, and restates that blocking requires a reason and cascade_down affects all leaves. Most parameter meaning is still carried by the schema, so this is appropriately a baseline-level contribution.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set a status on a leaf item.' It also clarifies that parent statuses are derived rather than directly set, which distinguishes this from a generic edit operation and makes the scope clear.

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?

It gives some useful usage constraints: parent statuses are derived, blocking requires a reason, cascade_down applies to every leaf below, and exactly one of id or ids should be passed. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like tasks_edit, nor does it describe when not to use it.

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