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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully scopes the mutation (it does not close an Issue or complete a ToDo), but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond that boundary.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description clarifies scope but leaves the three undocumented parameters, especially the non-obvious Japanese stage enum, unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for all three required params. The description only weakly implies 'stage' (process stage) and 'case_id' (existing case) and adds nothing about the Japanese enum values or the project_id/stage relationship, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Change the process stage of an existing shared project case.' This is clearly distinct from case-creation (create_shared_work_case) and source-linking (link/unlink_shared_work_case_source) siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 exclusion 'This does not close a GitHub Issue or complete a ToDo' implicitly routes the agent away from completion-style actions (cf. complete_shared_item), but it never states when this tool should be chosen or names the correct alternative. Usage is only implied.

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