update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only reveals that it updates status and syncs to git. It does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, what happens if the git sync fails, or if there are any transition restrictions between statuses.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the git sync behavior without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the main functionality and the git sync side-effect. However, it omits context about preconditions (e.g., git repo, task existence), error handling, and what 'auto-sync' concretely does (e.g., commit/push).

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%, yet the description does not explain the meaning of 'phaseIndex' and 'taskIndex' or how they identify a task. The enum values are already in the schema, so the description's mention of statuses adds no new meaning.

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 action: 'Update a task status', specifies the allowed statuses (pending, in_progress, complete), and adds a distinctive side-effect: 'auto-sync to git'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are mostly generation, git, or bug-related.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of typical contexts such as 'after completing a task' or 'when a phase/task progresses'. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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