Move report between states

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds value beyond the hints: idempotence becomes a concrete no-op, illegal transitions are explicitly rejected, and the admin-UI equality is stated. It does not spell out what destructive effects may occur (e.g., irreversibility of dismissing), but the annotation already flags the risk.

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?

Five dense sentences cover the action, targets, return shape, behavioral traits, and sibling routing with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and only minor redundancy with the structured fields ('Write', 'idempotent') keeps it from a top score.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 required strings, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, everything the agent needs is present: how to call it, what statuses are legal, the return shape '{ report }', the idempotence rule, and the alternatives. Safety traits are already covered by the annotations, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, placing the baseline at 3. This description raises it by curating the full 11-value enum into the actual valid targets (classified, grouped, fixing, fixed, verified, reopened, dismissed), preventing an agent from trying to enter pending, triaged, in_progress, or resolved directly. The semantics slightly exceed what the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a concrete action on a concrete resource: 'Move a report to a new workflow state' and immediately scopes it with the rule of the admin UI. It explicitly names the valid target set, distinguishing this tool from get_* siblings, merge_fix, and reopen_report.

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 final sentence is an explicit routing rule: 'Use to dismiss a duplicate or mark fixed; use merge_fix to mark fixed via a merged PR, or reopen_report for the reopened path.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when not to, naming the alternatives.

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