Edit Tracker status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the edit is partial (omitted fields unchanged) and version enables optimistic locking against concurrent edits. It omits auth/permission requirements and what the response looks like, but this is solid value beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded paragraphs with the partial-update rule first and the id/version caveats second; no filler. Slightly terse on field scope, but every sentence earns its place.

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 3-param PATCH with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers the important calling constraints (partial update, id form, locking). The valid body fields (name, type, order, description) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage, but no return behavior or error conditions are mentioned.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does add meaning (version's optimistic-locking purpose, partial-update semantics), but it also creates a conflict: it insists status_id is the numeric id "not the key", while the schema description says "Status id or key" and types it as a string. That inconsistency between description and schema is a net negative rather than pure added clarity.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Edit an issue status", plus the partial-update rule that only fields set in body are changed. However, calling it an "issue status" is slightly misleading for a tracker status dictionary entry; an agent could confuse it with changing a status on an issue (tracker_issues_update / tracker_transitions_execute). It never names its real siblings (tracker_statuses_create, tracker_statuses_list) to disambiguate.

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?

Implicit guidance only: it tells you status_id comes from statuses_list (a retrieval sibling) and version comes from a get/list tool, which steers the workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of tracker_statuses_create for new statuses, and no note on permission requirements for editing.

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