update_content_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only hints that transitions are constrained by an 'allowed... workflow'. It does not explain validation of transitions, side effects, permissions, or error behavior, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty for a state-changing operation.

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 direct sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action and object. It is efficient, though it could use additional structure to convey transition constraints.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the critical contextual detail - the exact status workflow and allowed transitions - is not provided. An agent cannot confidently predict whether a transition like idea -> published is allowed, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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. It maps 'content idea' to idea_id and 'status' to new_status only indirectly, and does not explain that new_status must be a valid transition target for the current idea. The enum in the schema is the only real parameter guidance.

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 a specific action ('Move') and resource ('a content idea') plus the domain concept 'allowed status workflow', which clearly identifies this as the status-transition tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like save_content_idea, but the workflow wording makes the purpose clear.

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 phrase 'through the allowed status workflow' implies this tool is for status changes, which gives the agent a basic trigger condition. However, it offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives such as save_content_idea, so the guidance is only implicit.

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