project_move_status

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint: false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond stating it changes status (a write operation). No mention of side effects, permissions, or error 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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The verb and resource appear first. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no error or return value description. While the action is simple, the description omits what happens on success (e.g., returns updated item) or failure conditions, which is a gap for an AI agent.

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%, and the description enriches the status parameter by noting alias support (e.g., 'dev'→'開発中'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. Other parameters are not elaborated, but schema descriptions suffice.

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 action ('Change the status') and the resource ('project item'), with examples of status values and alias support. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like project_set_issue_state.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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