update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly communicates that the operation mutates an existing task's status and constrains the valid values. However, it does not disclose what happens if the task does not exist, whether the change is reversible, or what the response contains, though an output schema exists to cover some of that.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and gives usage guidance, examples, and allowed values in just a few sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, with no repetition of schema fields.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, this description is nearly complete: it states the action, the trigger scenario, and the valid status values. It could add a note about how to obtain task_id, but the combination of schema, output schema, and description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0%, but the description compensates for the most important parameter by explicitly stating that status must be one of 'done', 'in_progress', or 'blocked'. It also frames task_id as referring to an already-logged task. The task_id semantics could be slightly richer, but the critical enum-like constraint is present only in the description, giving it genuine added value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update the status of an existing logged task'. It also clarifies scope with 'e.g. unblock it' and gives the allowed status values, making it clearly distinct from siblings like update_task_tag or update_task_due_date.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user says a previously logged item has changed state'. It provides concrete examples like a blocker being resolved or work moving from in progress to done. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context is clear enough given the sibling names.

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