update_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses admin-only access, the expected status values, and the return format. It does not mention side effects or idempotency, but it adds significant behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.

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 well-structured with a header, a usage note, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by removing redundant labels. Overall, it front-loads key info and is easy to parse.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, access restrictions, parameter meanings, and return values. It is nearly complete, though it could add more detail on error handling or edge cases. The output schema is described in plain text, which is helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line descriptions for each parameter (e.g., progress range 0-100, error_message for failed). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the descriptions are minimal and do not explain optionality or dependencies in depth.

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 updates task status and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'report_task_completion' by noting that Workers should use that instead. The verb 'update' and resource 'task status' are specific and unambiguous.

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 that only Admin can use this tool and that Workers should use 'report_task_completion' instead. It also provides parameter descriptions that clarify when each parameter is applicable (e.g., 'error_message' for failed status). This leaves no ambiguity about usage context.

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