Update a study's status to open, in_progress, concluded, or abandoned to track its lifecycle.
Move a study between open, in_progress, concluded and abandoned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| cwd | No | Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree. | |
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies a state-changing operation, but does not mention transition constraints, idempotency, what happens if a study is moved to the same status, or whether moves can skip statuses. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and lists the relevant statuses, making it easy to parse. It is concise without being falsely minimal.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It omits important context such as the result of the operation, whether all transitions are allowed, and how errors like invalid status or missing study are handled. An agent would need to inspect sibling usages or infer behavior.
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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. The status parameter benefits slightly because the description repeats the enum values, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The description does not clarify what values are valid targets, what 'id' refers to, or how 'cwd' interacts with the operation.
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 names a specific verb ('move'), a resource ('study'), and the exact domain of statuses ('open, in_progress, concluded and abandoned'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling study tools like study_open, study_conclude, and study_status, which only handle a subset of transitions.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as study_open, study_conclude, or other study-related tools. There are no prerequisites, no examples, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that this is the general status-transition tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.