update_dag_run_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, how state changes affect workflows, or what happens if the DAG run doesn't exist. For a state-update tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and identifiers, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 (state mutation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, parameter details, return values, or error conditions. For a mutation tool in a workflow system, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 but only partially does. It mentions 'DAG ID' and 'DAG run ID' as identifiers, mapping to two required parameters, but doesn't explain the 'state' parameter's purpose, possible values (e.g., 'running', 'failed'), or that it's optional with a default of null. This leaves key parameter meaning undocumented.

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 action ('Update') and target ('DAG run state') with specific identifiers ('by DAG ID and DAG run ID'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'delete_dag_run' or 'set_task_instances_state' by focusing on state modification rather than deletion or task-level changes. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'set_dag_run_note' which might also involve DAG run updates.

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 like 'set_task_instances_state' or 'clear_dag_run'. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for updating DAG run states, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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