Create Tracker status

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

Annotations cover safety/idempotency hints, but they say destructiveHint=false while the description discloses the far more important trait: statuses are org-wide and irreversible because no delete endpoint exists. That is exactly the context annotations cannot carry. It stops short of stating duplicate-key behavior or auth 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource, then the risk warning, then the field glossary. No filler and nothing buried.

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 single nested body parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision input (permanence) and field meaning. It omits what the call returns and how duplicate keys fail, which are minor given the schema already handles the input shape.

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 100% and already documents key (Latin, lower-case start), name (en/ru), and the type values. The description restates those same facts in prose ('key is the latin identifier, name holds the ru/en display names'), adding little beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an org-global issue status') and pins down the scope as organisation-wide, which cleanly separates it from tracker_statuses_list and tracker_statuses_update among its siblings.

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 CAUTION supplies real decision context: creation is permanent and there is no delete endpoint, which effectively tells the agent when to hesitate. It does not, however, name the alternatives (e.g. tracker_statuses_update to modify an existing status) or state prerequisites such as required permissions.

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