change_issue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates a mutation ('change') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or any impact on related entities. It also doesn't state what happens on success or failure, which is a significant gap for a state-changing 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriate. However, it is so brief that it barely distinguishes itself from the tool name itself, lacking any additional structure or emphasis. Still, it is not verbose, so it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description. It does not explain the transition lifecycle, the meaning of each transition, or the expected behavior after the call. For an agent to safely invoke a state-changing operation, this is incomplete. The schema provides only parameter lists, not operational context.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions ('Issue key' and 'Transition to apply (confirm, falsepositive, wontfix, reopen)'), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, hence 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 states a specific verb ('change') and resource ('status of a SonarQube issue'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues or list_quality_gates. It is unambiguous about the tool's core function, though it doesn't mention the specific transitions, which are only in the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about workflow. There is no mention of when an issue status change is appropriate or any excluded scenarios. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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