Update GitLab issue

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false), but the description adds no behavioral details. It does not mention that this is likely a partial update (only provided fields are changed) or any side effects, which is critical for a write operation with 14 optional parameters.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and lists all major updateable areas. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 14 parameters and low schema description coverage (14%), the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial vs full replace), permissions needed, or how the provided values interact with existing data. The output schema exists but does not cover these behavioral aspects, leaving the description incomplete for effective use.

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 description lists high-level categories (assignees, labels, milestone, etc.) but does not map them to specific parameters like assignee_ids, add_labels, remove_labels, or milestone_id. With only 14% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming some fields but misses many (weight, due_date, description, discussion_locked) and fails to explain nuances like add vs remove labels.

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 tool updates issue metadata, assignees, labels, milestone, confidentiality, or open/closed state, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue or update_issue_note. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_merge_request or other update tools, making it slightly less distinct than ideal.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the capability without contextualizing when it's appropriate.

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