Update an issue

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses key write behaviors: body overwrites rather than appends, labels and assignees are fully replaced, unknown labels are skipped and reported, and omitted fields remain unchanged. It also states the required write:issue scope. These details align with destructiveHint=true and add meaningful operational context.

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 well-structured: a clear lead sentence, parameter block, behavioral note, return fields, and examples. It is fairly long but justified for a 9-parameter tool. A small amount of parameter detail duplicates the schema, but the organization keeps it scannable.

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 the tool's complexity, 9 parameters, no output schema, and the write-side annotations, the description covers auth scope, overwrite semantics, required-field conditions, defaults, return value shape, and practical examples. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: 'replaces the current title', 'this overwrites, it does not append', 'replaces the full label set', and 'replaces the full assignee list'. The 'at least one changing field is required' rule is also a valuable addition.

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 first sentence names the verb ('Changes') and the resource ('an existing issue'), plus the exact mutable attributes: state, title, body, labels, or assignees. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like forgejo_create_issue and forgejo_comment_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 clearly states that the target must be an existing issue, requires the issue number, and requires at least one changing field. It also says omitted fields are left untouched. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use forgejo_create_issue for new issues', but the usage context is unambiguous.

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