project_set_issue_state

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

The description is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation, confirming a write operation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., notifications, timeline updates) or the dependency of the 'reason' parameter on the 'state' being 'closed'. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotation.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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 does not explain the return value or confirm success, nor does it mention constraints like the reason parameter being required only when closing. For a mutation tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, more context is needed for safe invocation.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning or context about the parameters, so it is adequate but not improved beyond the schema baseline.

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 'Close or reopen an issue' is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly indicates the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like project_edit_issue which may handle other fields, and project_move_status which likely moves status in a project board.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as project_edit_issue for other modifications or project_move_status for board status transitions. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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