set_issue_health_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that dry_run=true by default, providing a safety preview before committing. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, or what happens when the health status is set (e.g., immediate update, confirmation needed). The dry_run mention adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise, conveying the action, allowed values, and a key behavioral default in a single sentence. No extraneous words; everything is front-loaded and directly useful.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only mentions that dry_run=true provides a preview, but does not describe the response format, error messages, or confirmation upon success. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, leaving the agent unaware of expected output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description restates the health status enum values and the dry_run default, which are already present in the schema. It does not add new semantic understanding beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('health status of an issue'), and lists the valid values including null to clear. The tool name explicitly targets issues, distinguishing it from the sibling set_epic_health_status for epics. However, it does not explicitly state that it is only for issues, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue, which might also modify health status. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or situations where this tool should be preferred or avoided. The dry_run default hints at a safe preview but not context for selection.

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