update_issue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the status is updated and that updated details are returned, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or edge cases such as what happens if the issue is already resolved. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured with Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the return note is not essential. However, the description lacks caveats like missing issue handling, status validation, or whether the update is a partial update. For an agent, this is minimally adequate but leaves some scenarios unclear.

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 explains both parameters: issue_id as 'The issue ID' and status as '"open" or "resolved"', which adds valid-value context beyond the raw schema. It is not overly detailed but sufficient for a two-parameter tool.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an issue's status (open or resolve it).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_issues and add_issue_comment by indicating a write operation on status.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage by naming the action, but it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for related operations, unlike high-scoring examples that name specific alternatives.

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