set_status

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing refusal behavior ('refuses, returning the diff, if the description changed since you claimed it'), the empty-evidence contract ('this call carries no evidence of its own'), external gate checks a project can hook, and the side effect that canceled reasons are posted as a comment. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure layered on top of destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is a single tangled run-on sentence ('...and your claim, and refuses, returning the diff, if the description changed since you claimed it') that is grammatically broken and hard to parse. The content mostly earns its place, but the structure does not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers refusal/diff behavior. For a tool with conditional gates and mutation semantics, it conveys enough that an agent can call it correctly in both the completed and canceled paths, though the set_state cross-reference stays muddy.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic meaning about the 'state' parameter: completed names trigger Done-when gates and canceled names bypass checks and consume 'reason'. It does not add anything about 'issue' beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Move a ticket to a workflow state by name.' That is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the confusingly similar sibling set_state, which it references as a separate tool for writing evidence, leaving the agent to disambiguate the two names on its own.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: completed states require the Done-when checklist, merged PRs, and a claim, while canceled states skip those checks and need a reason. This is real when-to-use context. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over set_state or set_fields for state changes.

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