gitlab_update_issueUpdate GitLab issue details such as title, description, labels, assignees, milestone, and state to keep your project tracker accurate.
Update an issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| labels | No | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| issue_iid | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| state_event | No | ||
| assignee_ids | No | ||
| milestone_id | No | ||
| api_parameters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v27.3.13Does 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 externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required permissions, what happens to unspecified fields, whether the operation is a full or partial update, or how to scope it to a project versus group. With annotations carrying the burden this is not fatal, but the description contributes no extra 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 single sentence is short but not concise — it is under-specified rather than front-loaded with useful information. There is nothing to trim, but also nothing of value delivered.
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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine field semantics, scope requirements, or expected behavior without external knowledge.
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% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. Critical parameters like issue_iid, project_id, group_id, state_event versus state, assignee_ids, labels (which accepts either an array or a string), and the opaque data/api_parameters objects are entirely undocumented — leaving ambiguity that could easily cause malformed calls.
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 issue" merely restates the tool name and title rather than explaining what the update does. It gives no scope, no mention of which fields are editable, and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings such as gitlab_update_epic or gitlab_update_note.
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, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like gitlab_get_issue or gitlab_delete_issue. An agent has to infer the entire usage context 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.