update_phase_status

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds little beyond repeating the allowed status values from the schema, failing to disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or what 'current phase' refers to.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the purpose and usage immediately front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous text.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or side effects, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what 'current phase' is (e.g., a session-level state or a phase ID), nor does it mention the conditional requirement for the 'blocker' parameter when status is 'blocked'. The description should explain what happens after a status update.

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 parameters. The description repeats the allowed statuses inline but does not add additional meaning, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention the conditional 'blocker' parameter when status is 'blocked'.

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 the resource 'current phase status'. It lists the valid statuses and provides specific usage scenarios ('when starting work on a phase' or 'when blocked'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like complete_phase or defer_phase.

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 states when to use the tool ('Call when starting work on a phase (in_progress) or when blocked'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other operations like marking a phase as pending.

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