update_issue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the fact that a comment can be attached and paraphrases the status effects, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., suppressing notifications), permission requirements, reversibility, or what response to expect after mutating the issue. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. It communicates the action, the supported statuses, and the optional comment without any filler or repetition.

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 is minimally viable for a tool with a rich schema (100% param coverage) and no output schema. It tells the agent what the tool does and what parameters matter, but it omits expected return behavior and operational caveats (permissions, idempotency, consequences). Given the moderate complexity and mutation nature, more context would be needed for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (status enum descriptions, comment purpose, issue_id format). The description adds no new parameter-level details; it merely restates the status values in a more casual way. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change the status') and resource ('Sentry issue'), then enumerates the exact state transitions (resolve, unresolved, ignore, resolvedInNextRelease) and the optional comment. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/get tools, all of which are read-only.

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 when to use the tool (whenever you need to mutate issue status) and lists supported statuses, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. Since all sibling tools are read-focused, the usage context is inferred rather than stated, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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