update_issue_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 only states that the tool updates the status, but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., notifications, state transitions), required permissions, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could be improved by mentioning the expected return value (e.g., success confirmation) or any prerequisites like the app_id must exist.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the status enum values. Therefore, it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Updates'), identifies the resource ('issue group'), and explicitly lists possible statuses ('resolved, closed, in progress, etc.'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_issue' and 'list_issues' which are read-only.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use this to mark issues as resolved, closed, in progress, etc.'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using a different tool for other updates.

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