create_issue_by_issue_id_by_status

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with these and adds the specific effect: changing an issue's status. It does not disclose side effects, allowed status transitions, or auth requirements, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The endpoint and Args section add useful context without unnecessary prose. Slightly redundant with the schema, but not padded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema and informative annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is the lack of accepted status values, but the definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic meaning for both parameters: issue_id identifies the issue and status is the new status. This is minimal but sufficient for simple use; it does not specify valid status values or formats.

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 action and resource: 'Update an issue's status.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue, delete_issue_by_issue_id, and create_issue_by_issue_id_comment. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when updating an issue's status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the immediate action. It gives enough context for straightforward use but no richer routing guidance.

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