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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: the run is created in Ready and later claimed, open runs lock the issue so edit_issue/delete_issue fail (but status changes and comments still work), blocked runs remain isBlocked until blockers are Completed, and it states the return value ('Returns the run'). This is exactly the mutation/permission/locking context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then layered with constraints in a logical order (state, exclusivity, blocking, locking, permissions). It is dense and long-ish, but nearly every clause carries a distinct constraint, so little is wasted.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle state, claim behavior, locking side effects, blocking semantics, and all preconditions, and explicitly notes it returns the run. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (issueKey) and schema description coverage is 100% ('The issue's key, e.g. BRD-42'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline-3 rule for high coverage.

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+resource ('Hands an issue to the agent: creates an agent run'), states the resulting state (Ready), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that picks up the work (claim_agent_run). An agent can separate it from cancel_agent_run/claim_agent_run/finish_agent_run without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: an issue can have only one open run, so cancel first; a blocked issue can still be handed off and its run waits as isBlocked; prerequisites are enumerated (only the assignee, requires canEdit, issue must be in a Created status, epic needs Created/InProgress/Review statuses) with pointers to get_issue/list_issues/list_statuses.

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