change_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears the responsibility. It discloses that it's a wrapper around update_task and that status_group and state_id are alternatives (OR). However, it doesn't mention what happens if both are provided, whether state_id must come from list_states, or any error/validation behavior. The wrapper reference implies update_task's behavior but doesn't spell out side effects.

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?

Three sentences, all purposeful. The first gives the core action, the second gives the key parameter constraint, and the third explains the rationale for the tool's existence. No redundant or filler content.

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 and an output schema exists, so return values don't need description. The description covers purpose, usage context, and the OR parameter rule. However, it leaves a small gap about behavior when both parameters are supplied or when neither is provided, which would help complete the picture.

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 coverage is only 33% (only issue_id has a description). The description adds the crucial 'OR' relationship between status_group and state_id, which is valuable. But it doesn't clarify how to obtain state_id (e.g., via list_states) or what status_group values mean beyond the enum in the schema. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 'Move a task to a different state,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_task by explaining it's a convenience wrapper for the most common single-field update, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit context: 'Convenience wrapper around update_task' and 'most common single-field update,' implying it should be used for simple status changes. It also gives direct parameter guidance with 'Provide status_group OR state_id.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for multi-field updates) beyond the implicit wrapper context.

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