Gitea: Update issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not warn that every optional field defaults to null and that omitted or null fields may overwrite/clear existing issue data, nor does it mention permission requirements. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained jargon.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource followed by the mutable field list. No filler, though the unexplained "[UNIFIED]" tag adds no information and consumes attention.

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 an 11-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Critical information an agent needs — null-default overwrite behavior, string formats for labels/assignees, the singular/plural assignee ambiguity, and valid state values — is absent everywhere.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It names six updatable fields but never explains formats — whether `labels` and `assignees` are comma-separated strings or JSON, valid `state` values, milestone format — and it is silent on the confusing coexistence of `assignee` and `assignees`, as well as on `site`, `owner`, `repo`, and `issue_number`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing issue") and enumerates the mutable fields (title, body, state, assignees, labels, milestone), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-only siblings like gitea_get_issue or gitea_list_issue_comments. It stops short of differentiating itself from gitea_close_issue / gitea_reopen_issue, which overlap with its own `state` parameter.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent whether to use this tool or the dedicated gitea_close_issue / gitea_reopen_issue for state transitions, nor what preconditions exist (existing issue number, write permission). Usage is only implied by the phrase "existing issue".

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