save_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses mutation behavior and the two modes (create/update), but does not mention idempotency, side effects, or error cases. Given the output schema exists, partial transparency is acceptable.

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 highly concise at 3 sentences (45 words). It front-loads the core purpose, then provides targeted parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With 15 parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the description covers only 5 parameters. It omits guidance on several important fields (e.g., cycle_id format, allowed state_id values). The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter context.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema for 5 of 15 parameters: id, title, team_id, assignee_id (accepts 'me'), and priority (0-4 mapping). Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates, but many parameters like cycle_id, due_date, state_id are left unexplained.

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 'Create or update an issue', specifying the verb (create/update) and resource (issue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bulk_save_issues by focusing on single issue operations.

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 explicit guidance: 'Pass `id` to update. Creating requires `title` and `team_id`.' This tells the agent when to use each mode. It does not contrast with siblings like get_issue or list_issues, but the usage context is clear.

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