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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: lenient status-name resolution via trim plus case-insensitive matching, the board-scoped status set, the returned updated request detail, and the required API-key scope. It does not explain failure behavior when the status name is invalid, but the annotation burden is already partly covered.

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 three tight sentences with the main action front-loaded, followed by resolution behavior, return value, and auth scope. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, status resolution behavior, return shape, and auth scope. Minor gaps remain around invalid-status handling and the undocumented shortId parameter, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents account, workspace, and status. The description adds real semantic value for the status parameter by explaining that the name is resolved leniently against the request's board status set, going beyond the schema's simple example.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: changing a feature request's status by name. The feature-request scope distinguishes it from the sibling bug-status tool, so an agent can identify the correct tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

It implies the tool changes a status, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as fr_set_bug_status. The API-key scope is useful context, but it is not usage guidance.

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