update_issue

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing mutation behavior. It only states the operation and target fields; it does not mention write-permission needs, partial-update semantics, consequences of setting 'state', or any side effects. This is comparable to a bare 'update' statement without safety context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and the scope immediately, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool still lacks an explanation of how the issue is identified via owner/repo/index, the optional/partial-update behavior, or valid state values. Given six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this is too thin to fully support 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that title, body, and state are updatable, but it does not explain the required owner, repo, and index locators or what values state accepts, leaving a significant portion of the input semantics undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a concrete resource ('an issue') and names the three mutable fields (title, body, state), which is enough to distinguish it from create_issue, get_issue, and the separate update_pull_request sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_issue, get_issue, or list_issues, and no mention of prerequisites such as the issue needing to already exist. The context is not stated, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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