Set status

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining that metadata is written to the work log and affects velocity/metrics. Since annotations already indicate mutability, non-destructiveness, and idempotency, the description strengthens transparency by detailing side effects.

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 front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: first explains the core function, second explains Done-specific metadata. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and key parameters but omits details on parameter constraints (e.g., required vs optional context) and return values. Still, it is largely complete for its purpose.

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 lists the Done-only parameters (model, tokens, additions, deletions) and notes completionSummary is recommended, reinforcing schema hints. However, with 50% schema coverage, the description does not clarify other parameters like inputTokens, outputTokens, or the required ones beyond the enum status.

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 tool moves a task between three specific statuses (Todo, In Progress, Done) and mentions the ability to record metadata when moving to Done. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_lead_status or update_task, which have different scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_task) or when not to use it. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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