set_work_item_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the key behavior—setting state by UUID—and notes the wrapper nature, which clarifies that it's a targeted update. The mapping hint for list_states adds useful behavioral context. It lacks details on permissions or response shape, but for a simple status setter, the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core action, the relationship to an alternative, and a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the primary purpose. No wasted words.

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 simple mutation tool with an output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, how to use it, and a mapping prerequisite. The only minor gap is no explicit mention of how project_id factors in, but the description is otherwise complete for typical 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'state' parameter expects a UUID, not a label, and directs users to list_states for conversion. However, it does not elaborate on 'issue_id' or 'project_id', which are left to the schema's basic definitions. This partial compensation is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 states the tool's action: 'Change a work item's status by setting its state UUID.' It specifies the resource (work item) and the exact mechanism (state UUID), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'update_work_item' by labeling itself a convenience wrapper. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that leaves no ambiguity.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'Convenience wrapper around update_work_item' implies use this for status changes specifically, and 'Use list_states to map a status name... to its UUID' provides a direct prerequisite and alternative path. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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