update_issue

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation via 'Update' and states ID requirements, but says nothing about permissions, partial-update semantics, read-only fields, response shape, or side effects. For a mutating write tool, this is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the useful resolver guidance in the second sentence. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but there is no bloat or irrelevant detail.

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?

This is a complex write operation with a large nested issue_data object, three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only addresses ID resolution and leaves partial-vs-full update behavior, response contents, and permissions unclear, so an agent cannot invoke it with full confidence.

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 already describes all three top-level parameters and the nested issue_data object, so it does the heavy lifting. The description adds the uuid requirement and the readable-identifier resolution hint, but doesn't clarify how issue_data should be constructed or which nested fields are actually updatable.

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 clear verb and resource ('Update an issue') and identifies the required ID parameters, so an agent knows what the tool operates on. It doesn't enumerate which update fields are supported, so it's clear but not richly detailed.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use get_issue_using_readable_identifier first if only a readable identifier is available, which is valuable routing guidance. It stops short of explaining when not to use update_issue or contrasting it with create_issue and other issue tools.

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