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

Annotations already convey the write/openWorld safety profile, but the description adds real value: changes can trigger Rent Manager notification rules that reach other people, confirmation is required by default (and can be disabled), and a Cotlet API key with app access is needed. This exceeds what the annotations provide.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first two sentences are near-duplicates ('change the status, assignee or schedule... or add a note' vs 'changes one service issue: status, assignee, schedule, or a note'), and the 'reaches other people' point is stated twice. Some sentences do not fully earn their 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: scope (one issue), notification side effects, confirmation policy, and auth requirements. Return behavior is unspecified, but the core decision-relevant context is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description restates the updatable fields and adds only one detail ('use a status name from your database'), which is marginal beyond the schema. 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 (change/update) and resource (service issue) plus the exact fields affected: status, assignee, schedule, or note. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_service_issue and list_service_issues.

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?

Explains the context (updating one existing issue) and points to list_service_issues for the issue_id via the schema, and instructs using a status name from the database. It does not, however, address ambiguity against close siblings such as add_history_note (a note vs a service-issue note) or state when not to use it.

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