annotation_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates read or update, but omits details like required permissions, whether reading requires no updates, side effects of Slack notification (e.g., which channel is used), and if the operation is idempotent.

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?

Single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loads the core purpose (read or update) and optional feature.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., updated status or current status). It fails to do so, leaving the response behavior ambiguous. However, it covers the core functionality adequately.

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 description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the structured fields. The mention of 'optionally notifying Slack' aligns with the notify parameter's description.

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 reads or updates an annotation task's status, with optional Slack notification. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dynamo_read/write by focusing on annotation status, and from slack_notify by combining status update with notification.

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 implies usage for annotation status operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., dynamo_read/write for generic data, slack_notify for standalone notifications). No when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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