update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update an issue,' implying a mutation, but does not state what happens if the issue does not exist, how the patch is applied (merge vs replace), or any side effects or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence is short but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is under-specification rather than concise; it omits necessary information about parameters and behavior, so it fails to earn its place as a useful description.

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 tool with a complex patch parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and many related issue tools, a one-line description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the expected input format, the meaning of an 'issue,' or the outcome of the update, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 3 parameters with only 33% coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It does not clarify what 'id' refers to, what structure 'patch' should have, or when to use 'workspace_id.' The patch object is particularly opaque with no guidance on its keys or values, so the description adds zero value for parameter semantics.

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 issue' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (issue), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue, delete_issue, and get_issue. However, it is minimal and does not specify what fields or aspects can be updated, so it falls short of a 5.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with related tools like patch vs create_issue. This is essentially no guidance beyond the inherent meaning of 'update'.

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