create_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create', implying a mutation, but does not mention permissions, duplicate handling, reversibility, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It states the purpose but lacks any additional structure or context that would make it more useful.

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?

Despite having an output schema and three required parameters (including a nested object), the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what a 'status' is in this domain, how the parameters relate, or any expected behavior, leaving the tool incomplete for effective use.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (key, name, stype). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what is already structured, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Create a new status.' uses a specific verb+resource and clearly states the tool's action. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling create_* tools like create_issue_type, but the schema's stype parameter (new, inProgress, done) clarifies it pertains to workflow statuses.

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 list_statuses or update tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional usage notes, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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