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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses downstream consequences (RESOLVED reopens as REGRESSED on the next event and sends a regression card; IGNORED keeps counting events while staying out of the default list and all notifications). This is exactly the state-transition semantics an agent needs. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then structured as parallel 'To do X: call this with Y' clauses that each carry distinct information. The repeated 'call this with' phrasing adds minor verbosity, but no sentence is 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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, per-value semantics, the alternative tool, and the fingerprint prerequisite. It does not describe the response or confirm reversibility beyond the RESOLVED→REGRESSED path, leaving a small gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each status value does rather than just listing the accepted strings. It also clarifies where the fingerprint comes from (list_issues). The added value over the structured fields justifies raising above baseline.

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+resource ('Set one issue's status') and immediately scopes it to a single issue versus account-wide. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (create_suppression_rule for whole service/environment/exception/title). An agent can distinguish it from other set_* and suppression tools without opening any schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: RESOLVED for marking a defect fixed, IGNORED for silencing one known-harmless issue, ONGOING to restore attention. It also names the alternative (create_suppression_rule) and the condition that selects it, plus the prerequisite 'Get the fingerprint from list_issues first.'

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