appcrane_set_request_status

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

The description discloses that validated requests are considered closed and that the tool requires app-admin or AppCrane admin role. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers behavioral traits for a simple state transition 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, lifecycle, examples, and role requirement. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the lifecycle, provides usage examples, and specifies role requirements, which is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that id is the request # column and bucket is the target, which adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema already provides (enum values and descriptions).

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 tool moves a request through a lifecycle with specific transitions (triage to in_progress to shipped to validated). It gives concrete examples of when each transition should be used, making the purpose very clear.

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 lists when to use each state transition (e.g., "I'll take #42" for in_progress, after merging PR for shipped, after confirming fix for validated). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the provided scenarios are sufficient for basic guidance.

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