update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a key behavioral trait: 'Only provided fields are changed,' which clarifies partial updates. However, it lacks other important details such as permissions required, effects on related data, or return behavior. This is adequate but not thorough, warranting a 3.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences with zero unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the partial-update behavior. This earns a perfect score for conciseness.

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 schema fully documents parameters and the tool is straightforward, the description is sufficient for basic operation. It lacks information about success/failure responses and does not differentiate from siblings, but these gaps are more about guidelines. For contextual completeness of the tool's function, it is adequately complete, earning a 4.

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 schema covers all 9 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds global semantic clarification: only provided fields are changed. This reinforces that optional parameters remain unchanged when omitted, adding value beyond the schema. Hence a 4.

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 existing issue by identifier, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'edit_issue', which likely serves a similar purpose. This lack of differentiation lowers the score from 5 to 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update or edit_issue. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or context. The only hint is that it updates an existing issue, but no explicit 'when to use' is given.

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