Update an existing issue type's details, such as name, description, or active status, in a project by supplying the project ID, type ID, and updated fields.
Update an existing issue type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the issue type to update | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the issue type | |
| issue_type_data | Yes | The fields to update on the issue type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing issue type' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when only partial fields are provided in issue_type_data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and front-loads the essential information immediately.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what gets returned (if anything), error handling, or behavioral nuances. The complexity of the nested issue_type_data object with 16 properties suggests this tool needs more contextual explanation than provided.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters (project_id, type_id, issue_type_data) with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.
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 'Update an existing issue type' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('issue type'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_issue, update_label, or update_state, which all follow the same 'update [resource]' pattern.
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. With multiple sibling update tools (update_issue, update_label, update_state, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes issue type updates from other resource updates, nor any prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.