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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world) by disclosing concrete side effects: started_at/completed_at/canceled_at are set according to the target state's type, no promotion to another state occurs, and moving to a 'started' state acquires a claim lock that release_issue frees. These are exactly the mutation consequences an agent needs before calling.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb and target come first, then behavior, then the lock caveat. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical and the compact multi-effect sentence require careful reading.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers side effects, locking, and state-id sourcing adequately. The only gap is that the return value (e.g., the updated issue or its new timestamps) is never hinted at, since no output schema exists to carry it.

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 50%: 'id' is fully documented in the schema, while 'stateId' has no schema description. The description compensates by stating that stateId must be a workflow state obtained from list_workflow_states and that its type drives timestamp behavior, adding real semantic meaning beyond the bare string type.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Mueve una issue al workflow state stateId') and immediately identifies where the stateId value comes from (list_workflow_states). It also distinguishes the operation from the neighboring claim_issue / release_issue flow, so an agent can tell it apart without opening sibling 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?

Gives clear operational context: the state is applied as-is with no automatic promotion, and the valid source of stateId is named. It also warns that a 'started' type state claims the issue (same lock as claim_issue) and points to release_issue, which effectively routes the agent among alternatives. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of claim_issue when...' statement.

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