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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context: the status enum values, the side effect that 'deployed and needs_info mail the requester', and the access restriction. It doesn't mention whether updates are idempotent or what happens to existing fields, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 sentences with no filler. The access restriction is front-loaded, the status enum is compactly listed, and the side-effect warning is placed at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what statuses exist, what deployed_commit is for, what reply is for, and the mailing side effect. It doesn't specify the response format, but that's not required given no output schema and the tool's simple update nature. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that request_id is the identifier, though that's obvious from the name.

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 only 25% (only deployed_commit has a description). The description compensates by explaining the purpose of status, deployed_commit, and reply, and by listing the valid status values. It doesn't detail the format of reply or request_id, but the schema already provides types and the description adds the key semantic context.

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 verb ('set the status'), the resource ('a request'), and enumerates the exact status values. It also names the side effects (attach commit/reply, mail requester) and the access restriction ('Platform team only'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_platform_request and create_platform_request.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to update a platform request's status, attach a deployed commit, or reply. It implicitly differentiates from reply_platform_request by noting that reply can be attached here, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer one over the other. The 'Platform team only' restriction is a clear usage gate.

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