Move a ticket along the pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states each move posts a new card rather than editing, only the newest stays pinned, jumping stages is allowed and names skipped ones, automatic transitions on open/approve, and the separate storage of review gates. This is rich, actionable behavior that an agent would need.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds crucial detail for a complex tool with 12 stages. It is structured logically: what it does, how it behaves, special cases. No wasted words, but it could be tighter if it separated the automatic transitions from the main behavior.

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's complexity (12 stages, multiple side effects), the description covers all necessary contextual information: side effects, pinning, skipping, automatic transitions, review gate specifics, and alternatives. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly, even without an output schema (which is likely fine for a setter).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the stage enum semantics in context (e.g., 'revising goes back to the artist rather than forward,' and the distinction between review gates). It also provides examples for the note parameter ('Second pass, wider crop') which aids understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set which of the twelve production stages a ticket is on' and clarifies the side effect of redrawing the pinned card. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_ticket_stage (reading stage) and post_ticket_panel (posting a panel) by focusing on the stage-setting 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?

It explains when this tool is used (for manual stage transitions after automatic 'ordered' and 'confirmed' states) and mentions an alternative: 'every stage after that is set here or with /ticket status.' While it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, the context of pipeline progression is clear. It implies that this is the primary tool for advancing stages manually.

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