gitea_update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether partial updates are supported (updating single fields), what happens if the issue doesn't exist, or what the response format/structure is. It only lists which fields can be modified.

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 compact at two sentences with the action front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary noise, but the content is otherwise efficient without redundant wording.

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 tool with 11 parameters, zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of the identification parameters, return values, error conditions, and the distinction between 'assignee' and 'assignees' parameters.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage across 11 parameters, the description inadequately compensates. While it lists six modifiable fields (title, body, state, assignees, labels, milestone), it completely omits explanation of the four required identifier parameters (site, owner, repo, issue_number) and provides no format guidance (e.g., state values, assignee string format).

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 and lists modifiable fields (title, body, state, etc.). It implicitly distinguishes from 'create' operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitea_close_issue' or 'gitea_reopen_issue' which handle specific state transitions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this general update tool versus more specific siblings like 'gitea_close_issue' or 'gitea_create_issue'. While 'existing issue' implies it shouldn't be used for new issues, the lack of guidance on alternatives and prerequisites (e.g., required identifiers) is a significant gap.

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