Update issue

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

The description discloses that the tool returns the re-fetched issue for confirmation, and includes critical warnings about silent failures for several parameters (status_id, is_private, tracker_id, fixed_version_id). This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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, front-loaded with the main action and key change types, and includes the return value. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 20 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main categories of changes and crucial behavioral quirks. It mentions the return of the re-fetched issue for confirmation, but could also note the required issue_id and potential error scenarios (though schema handles required).

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 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level grouping and important cautions about silent ignores, providing extra context 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('issue'), lists several change types (status, reassign, dates, done_ratio, notes), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue, delete_issue, and get_issue.

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 implies use for modifying existing issues but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings (e.g., create_issue for new, delete_issue for removal). The context is clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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