create_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the admin-permission requirement, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but says nothing about key uniqueness, response shape, or what happens on conflict.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing redundant is present.

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 three-parameter creation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the definition is barely adequate: it omits whether the created status is returned, whether keys must be unique, and any admin-permission consequences. The admin note helps but the behavioral picture is thin.

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 key format, the localized name object, and the type enum are all documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an issue status") and the parenthetical "admin" signals scope. It is clearly distinguishable from read/update siblings like get_statuses and update_status by the verb alone, though it never explicitly routes between them.

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 only guidance is the parenthetical "(admin)", which hints at a permission requirement but does not state when to use this versus update_status or get_statuses, nor any prerequisites or ordering constraints. No when-not-to-use or alternative is offered.

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