Api organisation issues update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required permissions, what happens to fields omitted from the body, or whether the update is full-replace versus merge.

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 short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single identifier-like token carries no front-loaded information, and nothing earns a place because nothing is communicated.

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 a free-form body parameter, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies none of the context needed to call it correctly. There is no field list, no example body, and no return-value hint.

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% for two parameters: 'id' (string) and 'body' (arbitrary object or null). The description does not explain what 'body' should contain or which organisation-issue fields are accepted, leaving the agent with an untyped free-form object and no documentation.

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 just the tool name restated with underscores: 'api_organisation_issues_update'. It implies an update to an organisation issue but adds no verb framing, scope, or distinction from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_organisation_issues_partial_update.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus partial_update, batch_action_create, or destroy. The agent must infer choose-behaviour entirely from the name.

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