update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether omitted fields (state or labels) are left unchanged, whether the update is partial or full-replace, what permissions are required, or whether closing is reversible. The '(自动打标签/关单)' phrasing is vague about what actually happens on the server side.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is cryptic rather than informative, so it is not maximally 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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no return-value documentation, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without knowledge of partial-update semantics, permission requirements, or the effect of the automatic labeling/closing behavior it alludes to.

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 100% and all five parameters (owner, repo, number, state, labels) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes state and labels but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's enum and comma-separated hint.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('更新 Issue 状态或标签') and names the two mutable fields, which distinguishes it from list_issues, create_issue, and the read-only siblings. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_issue when a new issue is needed. The parenthetical '(自动打标签/关单)' hints at automatic labeling/closing but does not explain the conditions under which an agent should invoke the tool.

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