update_implementation_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden at least partially. It clearly marks the operation as a mutation, states a prerequisite (Pro+ tier), and limits the target to synced ADRs. It does not disclose what happens after the update, whether the change is pushed, or error behavior, so the transparency is only partial.

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 tight sentences with the main action in the first and key constraints in the second. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though it slightly duplicates the status enum already present in the schema.

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 batch mutation with no output schema, the description could say more about the result of the update, whether multiple updates are atomic, or what happens for unsynced ADRs. The Pro+ requirement and 'synced ADRs' constraint help, but the postcondition is left unclear.

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 100%, so the schema already defines adr_path, implementation_status, and notes. The description only repeats the status enum rather than adding new meaning about how to form the updates array, so it lands at the baseline 3.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear object ('implementation status of synced ADRs') and an operating context ('directly from the IDE'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are mostly read/analysis/validation/generation operations rather than status mutations.

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?

Provides actionable context: the tool is meant for ADRs that are already synced and requires a Pro+ tier. It does not explicitly name an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, but the scope is constrained enough that an agent can infer the intended use.

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