update_issue

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only repeats the verb 'update' from the tool name and gives no information about partial-update semantics, null-field behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. Given eight parameters and no additional context, the single sentence does not provide enough substance to be considered well-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?

With eight parameters, no annotations, no usage guidance, and 0% schema coverage, this description is far from complete for reliable tool invocation. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the missing parameter semantics and behavioral context remain critical gaps.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. Fields such as features_json, labels, assignee, reporter, and severity are left entirely to schema titles, providing no practical guidance for constructing a correct update.

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 identifies the action (update) and the target (an existing issue), and 'fields' suggests it is the general update tool rather than update_issue_status. It does not enumerate which fields or explicitly contrast with siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_issue, update_issue_status, get_issue, or search_issues. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient routing guidance.

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