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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavior: the permission requirement and the fact that a comment can be posted atomically in the same call. It is silent on side effects such as history entries, notifications, or what happens on an invalid statusId, so mutation behavior is only partially disclosed.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the permission caveat second; nothing is redundant or padding.

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 and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, permission, and the optional comment but leaves failure modes and downstream effects unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so the schema already explains issueKey format, the comment's max length and purpose, and where statusId comes from. The description's 'by id' and 'optionally posting a comment in the same call' restate rather than extend that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Moves an issue to a different status by id') plus the optional comment side-effect, which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, contrast itself with the neighboring edit_issue tool, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives a precondition ('Requires canEdit') and points to get_issue/list_issues for permission checking, which is genuine usage context. It never states when to choose this tool over edit_issue or list_statuses, nor any exclusions, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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