update_issue_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '更新' (update) implies a mutation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to other issue fields. The return value description ('更新結果訊息' - update result message) is vague about format or error handling.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose - no redundant information. The bilingual nature (Chinese purpose, English section headers) is slightly unconventional but doesn't harm clarity.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important context about permissions, side effects, error conditions, and detailed return format that would be needed for robust agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining all 4 parameters in Chinese. It clarifies the issue_id requirement, the status_id/status_name mutual exclusivity, and notes being optional. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('更新議題狀態' - update issue status) and resource ('議題' - issue), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'close_issue' or 'update_issue_content', but the focus on status updates provides reasonable distinction.

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 like 'close_issue' or 'update_issue_content'. It mentions the parameter relationship (status_id vs status_name) but doesn't address broader usage context, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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