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

Annotations only indicate it is a write operation and not destructive. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: suspended issues disappear from the default list, and all changes are reversible. This is valuable context beyond the structured 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 sentences with no filler. The action and status values are front-loaded, followed by the consequential behavior and reversibility note. Every sentence 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?

The operation, status values, side effects, and reversibility are covered, and the schema documents all parameter details while an output schema exists. It lacks only explicit usage alternatives or prerequisites, which are minor for this simple mutation tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the status enum values but adds no additional meaning about issueId, domain, or websiteId.

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, 'Update an issue's status', and enumerates the exact accepted statuses: open, in_progress, resolved, suspended. It clearly stands apart from sibling tools, none of which update 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?

The description implies usage through the verb and status list, but does not name alternatives or explicitly state when to use this tool versus another. The reversibility note hints it can undo prior status changes, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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