update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits. It mentions mutation ('Update') but does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to omitted fields, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the action and affected fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While more information could be added without becoming verbose, the current structure is efficient and clear.

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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks critical context. It does not explain partial update behavior, response expectations, relationships with sibling tools (e.g., creating vs. updating), or constraints. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly use the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool's description provides a high-level list ('status, assignee, estimate, or metadata') but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already offers. The vague term 'metadata' does not clarify which specific schema fields correspond. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal 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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing issue', listing specific fields like status, assignee, estimate, or metadata. It effectively communicates the tool's primary function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools (e.g., update_project), the resource itself provides sufficient distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_issue, delete_issue, or other update tools. The description lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites, appropriate use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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