iranti

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behavioral traits: the tool writes issue facts, preserves history by archiving prior states when status changes, and uses stable keys (issueId always maps to issue_<id>). However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a write 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it 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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, write operation) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or authentication needs, which would be helpful for a write tool with many parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning 'issueId' and 'status' in context. It doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters.

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's purpose: 'Write a canonical open or resolved issue fact on a stable key.' It specifies the verb ('write'), resource ('issue fact'), and scope ('canonical'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'iranti_write' for hand-rolling issueStatus properties.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you want defects, bugs, or chores to remain first-class shared memory instead of loose prose' and 'Prefer this over hand-rolling issueStatus properties through iranti_write when the fact is specifically a trackable issue lifecycle entry.' It clearly states when to use this tool versus an alternative (iranti_write).

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