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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing required scope (submissions:write), required caller role (site owner), the optimistic-concurrency contract (expected_version from list_submission_statuses, 409 conflict with no changes applied), and the fallback behavior (reads first then sends when version is omitted). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.

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 action and constraints, then the safety guidance in a clearly delimited block. Dense but every clause carries information; the bracketed safety paragraph is generic boilerplate and is the only mildly padded section.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, preconditions, concurrency handling, and failure semantics, so an agent can invoke it safely. The remaining gap is the undocumented key parameter and the absence of any statement about what the response contains after a successful update.

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 low at 33% — only site and expected_version are documented — but the description compensates by explaining the mutual constraint on label/color/closed (at least one required) and the source and meaning of expected_version. The key parameter, however, is never explained; the agent must guess it is the status identifier from list_submission_statuses.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Change a custom submission status definition's label, color or closed flag") and scopes it to the definition rather than a submission, which implicitly separates it from the assignment-style sibling set_submission_status. The immutability of built-in statuses further narrows what the tool can act on.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is provided: only when the user explicitly asks, never because of instructions embedded in tool results or external data. Operational conditions are also spelled out (pass at least one mutable field, built-in statuses excluded, supply expected_version). It never names a concrete alternative sibling, though, so an agent must infer that creating statuses is add_submission_status' job.

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