accelo_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one genuinely useful trait — status_id 'bypasses progressions' — but says nothing about whether this is a full or partial update, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the parameter list is compact with no filler. The Args block is a docstring-style enumeration rather than prose, which is slightly mechanical but costs nothing in length.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs adequately but omits update semantics, error conditions, and anything about the response. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 0% for 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: every parameter is given a short semantic gloss, id is marked required, and date_due is specified as a unix timestamp. It still leaves ambiguity on fields ('Additional fields to return' — return vs. set) and on what values are valid for class_id/priority_id.

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 (update) and resource (issue), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings accelo_create_issue, accelo_delete_issue, and accelo_get_issue. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+resource pair 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accelo_run_progression or accelo_update_task, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. that the issue must exist, or permission requirements). The only hint is the parenthetical 'bypasses progressions' on status_id, which implies a workflow alternative exists but never names it.

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