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

Beyond annotations, it discloses required authorization ('tickets:write'), idempotency-key persistence and retry behavior for epic completion, refusal semantics for stale coordinates and unready completions, and reconciliation via ticket_authority. It also states the return shape. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then conditional rules, then return and auth details. Every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact with no filler.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers authorization, preconditions, refusal behavior, retry/reconciliation guidance, and return values. It omits some details (e.g., status enum semantics, explicit alternatives), leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and explains the special-purpose parameters: completion_idempotency_key must be persisted before epic completion, expected_completed_at must be exact for terminal-epic reopen, and expected_completion_record_id comes from ticket_authority. It does not explain ticket_id or status enum semantics, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Change ... status') and scopes it to owned tickets through the lifecycle gate, making it distinct from a general ticket_update. The additional epic-completion and reopen conditions reinforce that this tool is for controlled status transitions, not arbitrary field edits.

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 clear when-to-use conditions for epic completion, reopening a terminal epic, and handling uncertain reopen responses. It does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., ticket_update) or explicitly state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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