Update Issue Status

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

The description discloses that only the status changes, that the operation is reversible ('any status can be set again later'), and that it is not a delete. It also reveals error behavior ('unknown id fails with 'Issue not found'') and authentication requirements ('Requires websiteId or domain with a workspace token'). These details go well beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive) and provide critical context 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 dense but each sentence adds essential information: the core action, the reversible nature, the status semantics, the exclusion from deletion, the source of issueId, error behavior, and authentication. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and flows logically. No fluff or repetition, though it could be slightly tightened without losing clarity.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how to obtain issueId, what happens on failure, authentication requirements, reversibility, and semantic guidance for status choices. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the semantic differences between status values (e.g., 'resolved asserts the bug is fixed; suspended hides a known non-problem') and clarifies the relationship between websiteId and domain ('Alternative to websiteId with a workspace token'). This contextualizes the parameters beyond their basic type and required-ness, though the schema already provides baseline descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Set an issue's status' with an explicit enumeration of allowed values (open, in_progress, resolved, suspended). It also differentiates itself from siblings by stating 'Not a delete: issues cannot be removed through this server,' which distinguishes it from delete_goals and delete_payments. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how to select the right status: 'Confirm which state the user means before calling: resolved asserts the bug is fixed, suspended hides a known non-problem from the default list_issues result.' It also instructs to get issueId from list_issues and warns about unknown ids. The 'Not a delete' statement clarifies when NOT to use it. It covers both when and how to use the tool, and names the source for the required parameter.

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