update_issue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing issue' does not reveal whether updates are partial or full, whether required parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) must all be supplied, what side effects occur (e.g., notifications), or whether the operation is idempotent. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, which is concise. However, it is so short that it omits important context, such as which fields can be updated or any behavioral notes. It earns its place as a clear purpose statement but under-delivers on informative content, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify return values, error conditions, partial update behavior, or the need to pass all required parameters. The schema and sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in all cases.

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 input schema lists 8 parameters with names and types, but the description offers no additional meaning. It fails to explain that 'body' likely replaces the issue description, 'state' can be 'open' or 'closed', or that 'labels' and 'assignees' are arrays. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 existing issue' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (an existing issue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_issue' and 'comment_on_issue' by focusing on modifying an existing record, though it doesn't enumerate which fields can be changed.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like changing the state of an issue, reassigning labels, or editing the title/body, nor does it suggest any prerequisites or exclusions. A clear context or explicit alternative would be needed for a higher score.

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