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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that a state holding issues is refused unless moveTo names another status on the same team. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure conditions and requirements.

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 sentences, both directly informative. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. No filler, no repetition of schema information, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with three parameters (one optional) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the key exception. It does not mention permissions or side effects beyond the refusal condition, but given the annotations already convey destructiveness, this is adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's contract without opening the 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with basic descriptions, but the description adds meaning by clarifying the conditional requirement for moveTo (required when the state holds issues) and the constraint that it must be on the same team. This contextual information is not present in the schema and helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Remove a status from a team board', which precisely identifies the tool's action and target. It also distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (delete_issue, delete_project, etc.) by explicitly scoping it to workflow states on a team board. The sentence about refusal conditions adds further specificity.

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?

The description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_state or reorder_states, nor does it state any exclusion criteria. The purpose is clear enough to imply usage, but there is no direct guidance on alternative selection or when not to use it. The only guidance is about the moveTo parameter, which is more behavioral than usage.

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