Save status update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that create requires a parent field, and that the output includes id, url, health. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a CRUD operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 that efficiently conveys the core behavior and constraints. Every element serves a purpose, with no wasted words.

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 has 6 parameters, CRUD semantics, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: create vs update, parent requirement, and output fields. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly, though additional details about error handling or idempotency could be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of `id` (create vs update) and the conditional requirement of `project`/`initiative` based on `type`. This additional context justifies a score above baseline.

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 that the tool creates or updates a status update, with a specific resource ('project/initiative status update') and the fields returned ({id, url, health}). It distinguishes between create (no id) and update (with id), which is a key differentiator.

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 explicitly says when to use create (no id) vs update (with id), and that create requires a matching parent (project or initiative). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear for typical use.

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