update_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does list the allowed status values, but it frames the operation as 'closes a task,' which is inconsistent with the todo and in_progress statuses. It also does not disclose what setting each status does, whether close effects are reversible, or how the reason is used.

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 short, structured, and easy to scan, with no redundant prose. However, the opening summary is misleading, which slightly reduces the value of an otherwise compact format.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should still clarify the real scope of the operation and how it differs from update_task. It includes parameter names but omits behavioral context for the non-close statuses and does not explain the effect of closing or changing status.

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 explain the parameters. It does add useful semantics by enumerating status values and marking reason as optional, but task_id is only restated as 'Task ID' and reason is described only as a 'close reason' even though the tool supports non-close statuses.

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 says 'Closes a task,' but the status parameter accepts todo/done/cancelled/in_progress, so this tool is actually a general status updater, not a closer. This misleading verb prevents an agent from accurately understanding the operation and does not distinguish it from the sibling update_task.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use update_status versus update_task, or when it is appropriate to set each status. The description implies a closing scenario but provides no context for the other statuses or any exclusions.

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