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

Annotations already declare the tool is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and potentially destructive. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that statuses must come from get_project_context for the selected project, which is non-obvious and beyond what the annotations state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences carry the essential action and the key prerequisite without any filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

With a rich input schema, annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the main action and prerequisite adequately. It does not mention when to use the single-comment tool versus bulk_update_comments, but the name and description make the primary use case clear enough.

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 83%, so the input schema already documents most parameters well. The description's guidance about valid statuses repeats what the status parameter description already says ('Call get_project_context to obtain current choices'), so it adds little beyond the schema. Priority is self-explanatory via its enum.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Set') with a precise resource ('a comment's status and/or priority'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_comment or create_comment. The scope is unambiguous and an agent can tell exactly what operation this performs.

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 clear prerequisite: 'Obtain valid statuses from get_project_context for the selected project,' telling the agent that statuses are project-specific and must be fetched first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use bulk_update_comments), so it stops 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.