set_status

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial unannotated behavior: it can refuse and return a diff if the description changed since claim, it reads gates a project may hook onto the tool, and reason gets posted as a comment. Only the valid state-name domain is left unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences carry real behavioral payload. However, the second sentence is a long run-on packing several conditional clauses, which slightly hurts parseability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers gating, refusal, and comment side effects well; the main omission is that valid workflow state names are never enumerated or pointed to.

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 issue, state, and reason are already documented in the schema (including that reason is required for canceled and posted as a comment). The description largely restates that for reason and adds little new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Move a ticket to a workflow state by name.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set_state by clarifying that this call 'carries no evidence of its own' while set_state writes it, so an agent can tell the two apart without reading schemas.

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 routing: moving to Done requires a completed 'Done when' section, merged cited PRs, and a claim, while moving to canceled skips those checks and requires a reason. It names set_state as the prerequisite tool for embedding evidence, so when-to-use is fully covered.

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