update_plan_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a genuine side effect — nextNodeId can automatically transition the next task to 'in_progress' — but omits permission requirements, whether invalid transitions are rejected, and what the call returns or affects beyond the two nodes named.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and enum values, then the optional behaviors. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 covers the core action and one side effect but leaves the agent guessing about failure modes, transition rules, and the result of the call. Reasonable, but not fully sufficient given the absence of structured hints.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in structured data, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds modest value by framing notes as optional and explaining nextNodeId's auto-transition, but does not clarify how or when the automatic transition triggers.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Update the status of a plan task') with the enum values enumerated inline, so the agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not contrast itself with the sibling update_node, so an agent must infer which one applies to task status changes.

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?

Usage is implied by 'plan task' and the status vocabulary, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer update_plan_status over update_node or how it relates to get_plan_summary. The agent is left to infer the routing.

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