github_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through an API, but fails to describe what gets updated, authentication needs, side effects, or idempotency. The description carries the full burden and fails completely.

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 short but includes irrelevant routing details (e.g., 'Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that do not help the agent. It achieves conciseness but sacrifices clarity and usefulness.

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 has one parameter, no output schema explanation, no behavioral context, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what fields to update or what the expected response is.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'arguments' of type string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the JSON string should contain or how to structure it. It adds no meaningful information beyond the parameter name.

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 it is a 'Github connector operation `update_issue`' but does not explicitly describe what the tool does. The name implies updating an issue, but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement, making it vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. With sibling tools like `github_create_issue` and `github_get_issue`, the lack of differentiation is a missed opportunity.

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