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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the email side effect on status change in a shared folder, the ownership-transfer consequence of moving to another user's full-role folder, the restriction on moving others' issues, and the automatic reference-graph update. Not covered: whether other edits (title, tags) notify anyone, or whether changes are reversible.

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-loads what the tool does and its partial-update contract, then layers side effects, folder rules, and the chip grammar in short, scannable sentences. The enumeration of chip types is long but each item carries distinct information, and the closing example earns its space.

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, this covers what an agent needs: side effects, permission/ownership edge cases on folder moves, status workflow policy, and the non-obvious linking convention. Only the response shape is unspecified, which is minor for an update call.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates: it explains folderId's move semantics and ownership effect, the intended meaning of 'test' vs 'done', and — most importantly — the chip syntax ($[note:<id>:<etiqueta>], $[issue:...], etc.) required to link resources via content, with a worked example. id, title, tags and priority get no added meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Actualiza una issue (parcial)') and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable (título, contenido, carpeta, etiquetas, estado, prioridad), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from issues_create or issues_get.

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 real decision rules: 'Solo cambia lo enviado' for partial updates, and a stated policy for status transitions ('status test; done solo si el usuario lo pide o lo has comprobado'). It also bounds folder moves. It never names a sibling tool as an alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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