Set ci lifecycle status

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so those traits needn't be repeated. But the description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about required permissions, the requestorId/actionName validation flow, lease/expiry behavior, or reversibility — for a lifecycle-state mutation with zero schema coverage, this is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is the source of the completeness gap rather than a virtue here.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with 7 undocumented parameters, two required inputs, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits preconditions, parameter meaning, and any sense of what changes or what is returned.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. 'Operational state' loosely evokes opsLabel and 'list of CIs' evokes sysIds, but actionName, requestorId, leaseTime, oldOpsLabels, and oldActionNames remain completely undescribed, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 states a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('operational state for a specified list of CIs'), clearly distinguishing it from the get_ci_lifecycle_status sibling. However, it does not differentiate itself from the other lifecycle mutators (add/delete_ci_lifecycle_action, extend_ci_lifecycle_lease), so an agent can't route between them from the text alone.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The sibling set includes several validation tools (check_ci_lifecycle_requestor_valid, check_ci_lifecycle_compat_actions, check_ci_lifecycle_not_allowed_action, check_ci_lifecycle_not_allowed_ops_transition) that are obvious preconditions for this action; the description never mentions that these checks should precede a set.

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