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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent behavior, and the description adds real side-effect context the annotations cannot express: assignment triggers emails to the new and previous assignee, and moving to a Resolved/Closed status may email the reporter an auto-reply. It also states the return shape ('without media links') and includes an explicit prompt-injection warning about untrusted returned text.

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?

Front-loads the core action and mutable fields, then layers prerequisites, side effects, and the security note in short sentences. Slightly redundant phrasing ('existing tags' repeated from the schema) and the 'provide at least one field' restatement keep it off a 5.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, identifier sourcing, side-effect emails, the return payload's limitation, and untrusted-data handling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100%, so per-parameter meaning (name vs numeric id, JSON null to clear, omitting to leave unchanged, 25-tag cap, UUID tags) is already fully documented by the schema. The description's 'Use names or ids from ...' sentence largely repeats what the schema says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Update) and resource (Ybug feedback item) plus the exact set of mutable fields (status, priority, type, assignee, tags), which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented siblings get_feedback and list_feedback.

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?

Routes the agent to the right value sources ('Use names or ids from get_project, list_project_members and list_tags') and states the precondition that at least one field must be supplied. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool versus a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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