create_issue_status

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'idempotently'. It adds behavioral details: category is a Huly SDK task.statusCategory key with specific values, taskType may be ID or display name, and omission applies the status to all task types. These details go beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior or permissions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No waste.

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 description covers key aspects: idempotency, scope, category, and taskType flexibility. However, it does not clarify the optionality of projectType and taskType, which could confuse users as these are not required by the schema but described as part of the scope. With an output schema available, return values need not be explained, but the role of optional parameters could be clearer.

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 provides minimal descriptions ('a string that will be trimmed') for three parameters. The description adds significant semantic meaning: it explains that category values are Huly SDK keys, taskType can be ID or display name, and omitting taskType applies to all task types. It also clarifies the scope of projectType and taskType. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: 'Add a Huly issue workflow status idempotently by normalized name within a project type and task type scope.' It specifies the verb (Add), resource (issue workflow status), and scope (project type and task type). The tool is uniquely named 'create_issue_status' among siblings, so it distinguishes itself.

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 implies usage for creating a status within a project type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use it, e.g., if the status already exists (though idempotentHint suggests it's safe). No alternatives are referenced.

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