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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the write-entitlement gate, but it does not clarify side effects such as whether status changes notify anyone, whether omitted fields are cleared, or whether re-assignment overwrites silently. A 3 reflects partial added context beyond annotations.

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 tight sentences: the operations are front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite. No restated title, no filler, and every clause carries operational information.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the main operations and the write gate, but leaves resolved_in_release undocumented and says nothing about what a successful response contains. It is adequate but has clear gaps given the schema's zero coverage.

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 carry parameter meaning. It maps well to status (resolve/ignore/reopen), assignee, priority, and note, but never mentions resolved_in_release or clarifies that issue_id is a required UUID identifier. It compensates for roughly half the schema 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?

The description opens with concrete verbs tied to the resource: resolve, ignore, reopen, assign, set priority, add a note. That enumerates exactly the mutations available and clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_error_issue and list_error_issues.

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 gives an explicit when-not condition: writes only work when the app enables MCP issue changes via Issues settings. It does not explicitly name an alternative for read-only inspection, but the prerequisite is a strong, actionable gating rule that most descriptions omit.

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