update_bug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'note-only updates' as a special case and implies field replacement behavior ('replaces existing tags' is in schema, not description). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether updates are atomic, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens when only note is provided without other fields.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality. The first sentence states the main purpose and key updatable fields, while the second adds important context about note-only updates. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and mentions a special case (note-only updates), but lacks important context about behavioral traits, error conditions, and what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing some updatable fields (status, priority, tags, related_bugs) and mentioning note-only updates, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples beyond what's in the parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Update an existing bug' with specific updatable fields (status, priority, tags, related_bugs) and mentions note-only updates. It distinguishes from 'add_bug' (create vs update) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'close_bug' which might be a subset operation.

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 implies usage context by stating 'note-only updates for progress tracking' and listing specific updatable fields, suggesting this is for modifying existing bugs. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs 'close_bug' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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