redmineflux_core_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the partial-update semantics and defines sentinel values for each field (e.g., 'empty = no change', '0 = no change', '-1 = no change'), which is valuable. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, but the core mutation behavior is well explained.

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 and follows with a structured Args list. Each line is purposeful, scannable, and free of redundant wording. It covers 9 parameters efficiently without bloat.

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 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description provides all necessary invocation details. It explains optionality and sentinel semantics clearly. Since an output schema is indicated to exist, omitting return-value details is acceptable.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with its sentinel value and valid range (e.g., 'done_ratio: New completion percentage 0-100 (-1 = no change)'). This adds essential meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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 'Update an existing issue' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies the partial-update behavior with 'Only provided fields are changed.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue and read-only queries.

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 context is clear that this tool is for modifying existing issues, not creating or reading them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other scenarios, though the sibling tool names and the verb 'update' make the intended use obvious.

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