Api organisation issues partial update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries only a supplementary burden — and it supplies nothing. It never says what a partial update mutates, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is technically short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: eight words that convey no information beyond the name. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 mutation tool with an untyped free-form body, no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description must explain payload shape and semantics. It says nothing at all, leaving an agent unable to call this safely.

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% and the two parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The free-form 'body' object is especially opaque — an agent has no idea which organisation-issue fields (status, origin, category, etc.) it may pass, and 'additionalProperties: true' makes it fully unbounded.

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 is the raw operation ID re-worded ('api_organisation_issues_partial_update'), which merely restates the tool name rather than stating in plain language what it does. An agent learns only that some partial update exists on an 'organisation issues' resource, with no verb+resource phrasing or scope.

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 versus ciso_assistant_api_organisation_issues_update (full update) or the many other organisation-issues siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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