Set status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious authorization constraint (agent cannot confirm/approve) that annotations cannot express, which is genuinely valuable. It stops short of explaining what a successful transition returns or whether RESOLVED actually closes the comment given the approval caveat.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and its values front-loaded, followed by the single most load-bearing constraint. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The authorization caveat fills the main behavioral gap. Minor residual ambiguity remains about whether an agent may ever set RESOLVED, since the enum permits it while the text says only the reporter can confirm a fix.

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 carry the burden. It names the two status values (already in the enum) and hints at the semantics of confirming a fix, but says nothing about commentId or its format/scope. Partial compensation for an undocumented parameter set.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Move a comment to IN_PROGRESS or RESOLVED') and enumerates the allowed target states, so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. No sibling (get_comment, fetch_feedback, post_reply, create_batch_note) performs status transitions, so the operation is unambiguously distinct.

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 draws a permission boundary: agents cannot approve, only the reporter can confirm a fix. This tells the agent a class of action is off-limits. It does not, however, say when to prefer IN_PROGRESS versus RESOLVED, so the transition guidance is only partially supplied.

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