github_issues_add_issue_field_values

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add', implying mutation, but does not describe whether values are appended or replaced, required permissions, error handling, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 with no waste. However, it lacks structure and does not prioritize key information. For a tool with a complex body parameter, more detail would be beneficial.

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 presence of a nested body parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the body format, constraints, or what the tool returns, failing to equip the agent for correct invocation.

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% but descriptions are redundant parameter names. The body parameter is an unstructured JSON object with no details about expected fields. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, leaving the body's structure ambiguous.

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 'Add issue field values to an issue' clearly specifies the action (add) and resource (issue field values). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'set' and 'list' versions. However, it does not clarify what constitutes 'field values' (e.g., custom fields, labels), leaving some ambiguity.

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 like 'github_issues_set_issue_field_values'. The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate tool or any prerequisites.

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