update_issue

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating and potentially destructive operation. The description adds the concurrency-control mechanism (using current version) but does not elaborate on conflict behavior, side effects, or the meaning of idempotentHint. It contributes some value beyond annotations but not extensive detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, destructive hint, optimistic concurrency), the description is too minimal. It does not explain error handling on version conflict, behavior of create_missing_labels, or how the view parameter affects output. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 38%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at expected_version ('using its current version'), while other critical parameters like changes, idempotency_key, create_missing_labels, and view remain unexplained. The description adds little to parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Patch one issue using its current version for optimistic concurrency.' It uses a specific verb ('patch'), names the resource ('one issue'), and adds a distinguishing detail (optimistic concurrency) that separates it from sibling tools like create_issue or archive_issue.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when updating an issue with optimistic concurrency, requiring the current version. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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