issue_set_classification

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses a critical behavior: only the fields provided are changed (partial update). It also indicates it's a wrapper over issue_update, which gives context about its behavior. However, it doesn't mention return format, permission requirements, or error handling, which would be useful.

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?

Two sentences cover the purpose, behavioral nuance, and relationship to issue_update without any fluff. It is extremely efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core semantics and the partial-update behavior, but lacks information about the return value, potential side effects, and validation. Given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete but has notable gaps.

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 schema has only 20% description coverage (only 'id' is described). The description lists the four settable fields (type, status, priority, severity) and ties them to the issue's properties, but doesn't explain their valid values or whether they are IDs. It adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool sets an issue's type, status, priority, and severity in one call, and explicitly distinguishes it from issue_update as a convenience wrapper. This provides a specific verb, resource, and field list, making it easy to identify the tool's function among siblings.

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?

It explicitly names issue_update as the alternative and frames this tool as a convenience wrapper for common triage actions, implying when this specialized version should be used. However, it doesn't list explicit exclusion criteria or other alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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