update_feature_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that status updates follow a workflow path, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, validation rules, or what response the agent should expect (e.g., success/failure structure). The phrase 'status or priority' also understates that both can be updated simultaneously per the schema, leaving ambiguity about transactional behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It includes the most relevant usage example without wasteful elaboration. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool has 5 parameters (1 required, 2 enums) and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and usage context, but it does not explain return values, behavior on partial updates, or project_id requirements beyond what the schema already states. It is adequate for an agent to invoke, but misses additional behavioral context like response handling.

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 minimal meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'move requests through the workflow' and 'set/change priority,' which mirrors the schema's status and priority enums. It does not clarify the interplay between status and priority or the purpose of status_message, but the schema descriptions already cover each parameter adequately.

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 'Update the status or priority of a feature request' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all read/analysis tools) by being the sole mutation tool, and the workflow example (pending → approved → in_progress → completed) reinforces its purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to move requests through the workflow' and 'or to set/change priority,' giving clear context on when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list (list_*, search_*, analyze_*) makes it obvious this is the only update tool, providing implicit differentiation.

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