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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: marking a request 'done' publishes it to the public changelog. However, it omits whether status changes require permissions, whether they are reversible, and what effect the other enum values have, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the side effect follows. Appropriately sized, though it could have used the space it saves to cover a parameter or two.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It surfaces one side effect but leaves permissions, reversibility, and enum semantics undocumented, which is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 compensate and does not. It never explains the 'id' format or the meaning of the status enum values (new, considering, planned, in_progress, done), leaving the parameter semantics entirely to the bare schema.

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 and resource ('Update the status of a feature request'), which clearly separates it from the read-only siblings like get_request and list_requests. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The changelog note is behavioral context, not usage guidance, so an agent gets no help deciding when this mutation is appropriate.

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