update_issue

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious side effect (auto-setting start_date and due_date on status transitions), which is valuable, but it says nothing about partial-update semantics (are omitted fields preserved?), permission requirements, or whether the update triggers notifications.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the side-effect warning placed second so the core action lands first. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 an 11-parameter unannotated mutation tool, the description covers the core action and one important side effect, and the schema is fully documented. It is still thin on partial-update semantics and sibling disambiguation, which are the two things an agent most needs to call this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The auto-set behavior the description mentions is already spelled out in the start_date and due_date schema descriptions, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; nothing is said about how notes, done_ratio, or status_id interact.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing Redmine issue'), which is clearer than a tautology. It does not differentiate from the overlapping siblings create_or_update_issue and update_time_entry, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for partial edits of an existing 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 word 'existing' hints at create-vs-update, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no guidance on the meaningful choice between update_issue and create_or_update_issue, both of which appear in the sibling list.

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