update_record_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation for record status in process management, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to other record fields, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation.

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 that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, how it differs from other update tools, or any prerequisites for using process management features. The description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand this tool's full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, provide examples of valid 'action' values, or clarify when 'assignee' is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('kintone record status') with the context of process management. It distinguishes itself from generic 'update_record' by focusing specifically on status updates, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_process_management' or 'update_record_assignees' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that handle record updates (update_record, update_record_assignees, upsert_record) and process management (update_process_management), but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific tool.

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