github_issues_update

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is idempotent, if it overwrites or merges the body, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (two words), which is efficient but insufficient. It lacks necessary detail, so conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.

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 complexity of the issue update (body parameter with many possible fields), the description is severely incomplete. No output schema, no examples, no hints about which fields are updatable. The agent has no context to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no extra meaning about what fields can be in the body (e.g., title, state, labels). The agent must infer the body structure from external knowledge.

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 states the action (update) and the resource (issue). It distinguishes from other issue-related tools like create, get, delete, and comment updates. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on what updating entails.

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. It does not specify if it should be used for partial updates, required authentication, or if there are prior steps needed (e.g., issue must exist).

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