Repair duplicate ticket ids

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: dry-run by default, apply:true to write, and the refusal of updates until repair. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, which align with the description.

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 three sentences, straight to the point, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and problem, then details the usage and a key behavioral note.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the problem, default behavior, application, and a constraint. It could optionally mention the return format, but it's not essential for a repair action.

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?

The schema has 50% description coverage (only 'apply' has a schema description). The tool description clarifies the 'apply' parameter's effect and the concept of a 'board' for the project parameter, adding moderate value over the schema.

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 tool finds duplicate ticket ids on a board and optionally renumbers them. It specifies the action (find, renumber) and the resource (ticket ids), and the context (legacy data collisions) makes it distinct from siblings.

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 explains the default dry-run behavior and how to apply changes, and notes that updates to duplicated ids are refused until repair, implying when the tool is needed. No explicit alternatives are given, but none are required given the specific task.

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