github_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies that labels and assignees are replaced (not added) and that empty values mean no change, which are important non-obvious details. It does not mention side effects or authentication requirements, but the session parameter hints at required setup.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args block that documents all nine parameters. Every line provides necessary information, and the format is clean and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 9 parameters, and the description thoroughly documents all parameters, especially the edge-case behaviors. It lacks explicit usage context or alternative guidance, but the presence of an output schema covers return values.

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?

With code schema coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including the replacement semantics for labels and assignees and the empty-means-no-change convention. This goes well beyond the input schema's default and type info.

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 updates an issue's title, body, labels, assignees, or state, providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like github_add_labels, which also modifies labels, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no statement about prerequisites or exclusions, such as noting that labels are replaced instead of added.

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