Update bug status

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral nuance by clarifying what each status means and why it matters to the reporter, going beyond the raw schema enum values.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then packs status definitions into a readable structure. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and non-destructive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the conceptual meaning of the statuses and the triage action; only a direct pointer to list_bug_reports as the source of bugReportId would make it fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the meaning of 'acknowledged', 'fixed', and 'wontfix' in the product's triage context, which is not captured in the schema's simple enum string.

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 operation ('Moves one bug report through triage') and identifies the resource being affected. It defines each triage state, giving the agent enough context to distinguish this from list_bug_reports or report_bug.

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 explains the meaning of the status values, which helps the agent decide what status to set. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like report_bug or list_bug_reports, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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