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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the meaningful behavior: the manual value persists until cleared with NONE, the computed priority factors (failed callers, events, alert firings, regressions) and their label set, and per-fingerprint outcomes including NOT_FOUND and ERROR. That is exactly the context an agent needs before mutating state.

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 action and its scope lead the description, followed by the computed-priority background and the return contract. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the computed-priority factor list is the one passage that could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so by enumerating per-fingerprint results (priority, whether manual, NOT_FOUND, ERROR). Combined with the persistence rule and batch limit, nothing essential to a correct call is missing for a 2-parameter write tool.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: NONE does not merely clear, it reverts to the computed priority, and the 1-50 batch bound is framed as an operating constraint. It could still spell out what ERROR means for the batch as a whole, but the value added is real.

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 (set/clear the priority of problems) and explicitly scopes it to problems from list_issues with kind PROBLEM, which separates it from set_issue_status and fix_issue. It also explains the manual-vs-computed distinction that defines the tool.

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?

Clearly says to use it to set a priority by hand or to clear it with NONE so the computed priority applies again, and points at list_issues as the source of fingerprints. It stops short of stating when an agent should prefer the computed priority over a manual override, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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