github_issues_reprioritize_sub_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, requires special permissions, or affects sub-issue ordering. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient but slightly sacrifices clarity. It earns a 4 for being short and to the point, though it could benefit from a bit more detail.

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 modifies sub-issues, has no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the effect of reprioritization (e.g., changes to order or priority). It lacks essential context for correct usage.

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% but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Reprioritize sub-issue' clearly indicates a verb (reprioritize) and resource (sub-issue), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_sub_issue' or 'remove_sub_issue'. However, it lacks detail on what reprioritizing entails (e.g., changing order or priority field).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_sub_issue', 'remove_sub_issue', or 'list_sub_issues'. The description offers no context for selection.

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