update_implementation_status

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

No annotations provided, and the description adds minimal behavioral insight. It does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether updates overwrite or append. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence introduces the core action and context, the second adds status list and tier requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context. It does not mention validation, error behavior, what happens to existing statuses, or the outcome of a successful update.

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 is 3. The description adds the Pro+ tier requirement, which is not in the schema, but does not explain the adr_path format or the effect of the array parameter beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'implementation status of synced ADRs', and the context 'from the IDE'. It lists the supported statuses, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 like analyze_adr_timeline or compare_adr_progress. Only mentions the Pro+ tier requirement, which is a constraint, not usage context.

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