update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and discloses meaningful traits: plain-text description is converted to HTML, description_html takes precedence, and state_id/state_name moves the issue's status. It does not cover permissions, partial-update semantics, or what happens when both state parameters are provided, but the disclosed behavior is substantial for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by tightly scoped bullet points that each add parameter value. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 a 7-parameter optional-heavy update tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names all editable dimensions and key parameter interactions. It would be slightly more complete with explicit 'only provided fields are changed' or error-case guidance, but the output schema and clear parameter bullets keep this at a strong level.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining almost every parameter: name as the issue title, description vs description_html with precedence, state_id/state_name with a pointer to list_states, priority allowed values, and the identifier example. Only minor ambiguity remains around the 'título' to 'name' mapping, but the intent is clear.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Edita' plus the resource 'issue' and enumerates the editable fields (título, descrição, prioridade, status). It gives a concrete identifier example (CKTPC-844), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling list/get/cycle tools.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool (to edit issue title, description, priority, or status) and provides an explicit reference to list_states for discovering valid state IDs/names. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like add_issue_to_cycle, but the scope is clear enough for correct tool selection.

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