set_epic_health_status

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

Beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the default dry_run behavior and valid values. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions required, or idempotency.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then a brief clarification of default behavior. No extraneous words.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and default behavior. It lacks details on response format or error cases, but the high schema coverage compensates somewhat.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra context by restating the health status options and dry_run default, but does not provide new meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Set the health status of an epic', including the valid values and default behavior. It is specifically for epic health status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_issue_health_status (for issues) or update_epic (for broader updates).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for setting epic health status, there is no mention of when to prefer this over similar tools like set_epic_iteration or update_epic, nor any exclusions.

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