Update issue fields and add notes to change status, progress, or comment on a Redmine issue.
Update an issue including notes/comments (PUT /issues/:id.json). Pass issue fields and optional notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| issue | Yes | Fields to update, e.g. { status_id, done_ratio, notes: 'comment' } |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals that the operation is an update via PUT and supports optional notes, but it does not mention required permissions, response behavior, or side effects on existing fields. It is not misleading, but under-discloses for a mutation tool.
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?
One sentence front-loads the operation, states the endpoint, and gives the calling pattern. No filler or repetition beyond the useful note about comments.
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 two-parameter update with a nested issue object, the description supplies the endpoint, the mutating intent, and the notes capability. It falls short of complete because there is no output schema and no mention of response or success/failure behavior, but an agent has enough to construct a basic correct call.
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 only 50%; the issue object is described in the schema with an example, and the description mostly restates that ('Pass issue fields and optional notes'). It adds no new meaning for the id parameter nor for accepted update fields, so the low-coverage schema is not compensated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an issue') plus the notable capability of including notes/comments, which distinguishes it from redmine_issue_create and redmine_issue_add_comment. The PUT endpoint reinforces exactly what operation is performed.
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 intended use is implied: pass issue fields and optional notes when updating an existing issue. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this over redmine_issue_add_comment for comments-only updates or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.