splithub_set_property_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the deprecation lifecycle ('kept for one release'), which is valuable context beyond the schema, but it does not say what actually happens if called — whether the alias forwards, errors, or silently no-ops — nor the effect of the status enum values on the target property.

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 sentence with the deprecation notice front-loaded ahead of the redirect. Every clause earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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For a one-release deprecation shim, the essential information an agent needs — that it is superseded and by what — is present. The remaining gap (whether it still functions, exact removal timing) is minor, though the absence of annotations and output schema makes it slightly more consequential.

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% on two required parameters, so the description must compensate and adds nothing about 'property' or the meaning/lifecycle of the 'running'/'paused'/'archived'/'restored'/'removed' enum. The enum listing itself lives in the schema, not the description.

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 identifies this as the deprecated alias of splithub_property_status, which is enough for an agent to know what the underlying operation is (setting a property's status) and to distinguish it from the live sibling. It never states the verb+resource in its own words, relying on the name and the named successor, but the routing intent 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?

Explicitly says to call splithub_property_status instead, which is the only correct action for this tool. The when-not-use condition and the alternative are both named outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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