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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds context by explaining the effect: 'This takes the pass away on the platforms it affects' and the reversible nature until fixed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The purpose and the key behavioral note are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and the annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains the effect and platform behavior, but does not mention return values or prerequisites like the need for an existing check. Minor gaps for a 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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description repeats the 'empty means all' guidance already present in the schema, adding no new meaning. It does not explain parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Raise an issue against a check' and explains the consequence (takes the pass away). It distinguishes from siblings like edit_issue and resolve_issue by describing the lifecycle effect.

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?

It gives a specific usage note for the platforms parameter ('Leave platforms empty to mean every platform') but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like edit_issue or resolve_issue. The phrase 'until it is marked fixed' implies resolve_issue but does not name it directly, leaving the agent to infer.

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