update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, return values, permissions, idempotency, or whether the update is partial. Simply stating 'updates status' leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. This structure is appropriately concise for the simple scope of the tool.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain success outcomes, return format, validity constraints on statuses beyond examples, or the relationship to sibling update_task. Lacks context needed for reliable use.

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%: task_id is described as 'タスクID' and status as '新しいステータス (例: "Open", "In Progress", "Done")'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'タスクのステータスを更新します' (updates the task status), specifying the resource (task status) and verb (update). The tool name reinforces this specificity, and it distinguishes from the sibling update_task by focusing solely on status.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_task, nor are there any preconditions or exclusions. The description only states the action without contextualizing its use.

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