seerr_set_issue_status

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

The description adds the explicit label 'WRITE' and states it modifies the Seerr instance, but this merely restates what readOnlyHint=false already communicates. It does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as valid status transitions, whether notifications are sent, or permission requirements.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the phrase 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' is redundant with the annotations and adds no value, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, but the description lacks essential context about allowed status values or the effect of the update. It is incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly without further schema details.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. There is no indication what values 'status' accepts or how 'issue_id' should be formatted. The description entirely fails to compensate for the missing parameter metadata.

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 verb and resource: 'Update an issue's status' indicates a specific action on a specific resource. It also distinguishes this from related tools like seerr_set_request_status or seerr_create_issue by explicitly naming 'issue' rather than request/media.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios for which other status-setting tools (e.g., seerr_set_request_status) would be more appropriate. Usage must be inferred solely from the tool name.

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