update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description fails to mention critical behaviors: required permissions (e.g., write access to the repository), whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications to assignees), or error conditions (e.g., invalid issue numbers). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with 9 parameters.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing issue') and specifies the context ('in a GitHub repository') efficiently. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information 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 lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, error handling, return values, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', or any other fields represent, their formats (e.g., GitHub usernames for 'assignees'), or how they interact. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing issue in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_issue' (for creating new issues) and 'add_issue_comment' (for adding comments rather than modifying the issue itself). However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue number), contrast with 'create_issue' for new issues, or specify scenarios like editing issue metadata versus adding comments (which would use 'add_issue_comment'). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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