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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that you can attach a fixing task and record a resolution, which is useful workflow context. However it omits partial-update semantics, what happens on an unknown issue_id, and permission requirements that a mutation tool should disclose.

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 tight sentences covering capabilities and the routing rule, plus a single API reference link. Capability comes first, alternative second, 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?

There is no output schema and nine parameters at 22% description coverage, so the description carries most of the burden. It conveys what can be updated but not the required-in-spirit resolution-on-close rule, nor the meaning of the unmentioned fields, leaving gaps for a multi-field mutation 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 description coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by naming status, severity, detail, the fixing task, and the resolution. It never explains the url, source, or title parameters, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (project issue) and enumerates the actual operations: status, severity, detail, task attachment, resolution. The line 'Use this instead of logging a duplicate issue' functionally separates it from the sibling log_project_issue, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('use this instead of logging a duplicate issue') and implies the precondition that the issue already exists (matching the 'known project issue' title). It does not name the alternative explicitly nor state when not to use it, e.g. for a newly discovered issue.

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