update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing issue' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, what's present is structured efficiently without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the response looks like, error handling, or any behavioral context needed for a mutation tool. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational guidance.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions, including 3 with enums), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 states the action (update) and resource (issue), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_pull_request' or explain what differentiates issue updates from other operations.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing issue), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_issue' or 'delete_issue' in the sibling list.

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