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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the tool is known to be destructive. The description adds a specific side effect: changing category re-derives started, completed, and canceled timestamps of issues. This goes beyond annotations and warns of a non-obvious consequence. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the side-effect warning is concise. Every word adds value.

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?

The description covers the main actions and a key side effect, but does not clarify whether multiple changes can be made in one call (the schema allows all three optional fields), nor does it mention failure conditions (e.g., non-existent state). No output schema exists, so return value behavior is unaddressed. Given the tool's complexity, some gaps remain.

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 40%, with team and state having descriptions while name, color, and category lack them. The description maps actions (rename, recolor, move category) to parameters but does not explicitly explain each parameter's format or constraints. It partially compensates for the low coverage by implying the purpose of each optional field.

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 states a clear purpose: rename, recolor, or move a workflow state to another category. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_state and delete_state by implying modification of an existing state. The additional note about re-deriving timestamps clarifies scope.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing state (rename, recolor, recategorize) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like create_state or delete_state. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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