Update Coordination Issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, which aligns and provides useful context. No additional behavioral details like auth needs or rate limits are given, but the description does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences plus metadata, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the API endpoint line could be seen as extra but is not harmful. Overall, it is concise and structured well.

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 three required parameters and a nested object, the description covers the partial-update behavior, required fields, and return value (modified object). It lacks explanation of the return structure since there is no output schema, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats that id, project_id, and coordination_issue are required and notes 'only the supplied fields are changed,' which adds minimal value beyond the schema. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the main burden.

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 action (update), the resource (Coordination Issue), and that it only modifies supplied fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create, show, and delete tools by specifying it updates an existing item.

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 explicitly says to use this for updating an existing Coordination Issue, implying it should not be used for creating or deleting. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which would make it even clearer.

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