set_work_in_progress

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

The description states the state change but omits behavioral details such as whether the change must be open, whether the message parameter is used to notify, whether the action is reversible, or any permission requirements. Since annotations are absent, this minimal statement carries full burden and is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, direct, and free of extraneous content. It is appropriately concise for a simple state-changing tool.

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 is adequate for stating the core action but fails to explain parameter roles or output behavior. Given no output schema and no usage guidance, the tool context is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description makes no reference to any parameters. With schema coverage at 0%, the description provides no additional meaning for message, change_id, or gerrit_base_url, forcing the agent to rely solely on names.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Sets'), the resource ('a CL'), and the target state ('work-in-progress'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling set_ready_for_review, which performs the opposite action.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_ready_for_review or abandon_change. The description offers no context on prerequisites or typical workflow placement.

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