update_implementation_status

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

No annotations provided; description indicates mutation (update) but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements beyond tier, or behavior on unsynced ADRs. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second lists statuses and constraint. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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; description does not mention return value or error behavior. Given simplicity, it's minimally complete but could include outcome confirmation or batch processing details.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context about 'synced ADRs' and lists statuses, but parameters are already well-documented in schema without additional insight.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update the implementation status of synced ADRs' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_adr_timeline or generate_adr_bootstrap by focusing on status updates.

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?

Mentions 'directly from the IDE' and 'Requires Pro+ tier' but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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