update_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides one important guarantee: all IDs are validated before any changes, preventing partial updates. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as whether the override is reversible, whether it affects dependent nodes, or what permissions are required. This is helpful but incomplete.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a key safety behavior without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral guarantee, but it omits usage context, parameter details, and what the agent should expect in return. It is enough for simple invocation but leaves gaps for an agent navigating among many related sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It indirectly covers node_ids and new_status via 'status of nodes', but the 'reason' parameter is completely unmentioned. The new_status enum is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states a specific verb ('override') and resource ('status of nodes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform narrower status changes like 'verify_upstream' or 'invalidate_upstream'. The qualifier 'manually' further clarifies that this is a direct, user-driven action rather than an automated process.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also alter node state. The word 'manually' implies a fallback for when automated flows are not appropriate, but this is not explicit. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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