Set status

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: the gate logic, snapshot refresh, git commit enforcement, and return fields (uncommitted, commitReminder). Annotations only provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with the core function and organized into logical additions (gates, snapshot, git check). While comprehensive, it remains concise with no redundant sentences; a slight reduction could be possible but current structure is well-suited for an agent.

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 complexity (13 parameters, gates, integrated systems), the description covers all key aspects: status transitions, conditional parameters, error conditions (refusal on missing commit), side effects (snapshot refresh), and response format (verbose vs compact). No output schema exists, but the description adequately documents return behavior.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for parameters like model, tokens, additions, deletions, approve, handoff, and verbose, clarifying their conditional use (e.g., 'Done only' for metadata) and side effects. With 62% schema coverage, it compensates for missing descriptions and clarifies parameter semantics beyond 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 states 'Move a task between Todo / In Progress / Review / Done' – a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the role of Review and the approve override, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from generic update tools.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (status transitions) and explains preconditions like requireReview and requireCommitOnDone, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as update_task, leaving the agent to infer when status changes are appropriate.

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