update_version

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 explains the side effect of closing a version ('removes it from the choices offered to new issues, without affecting the ones that already reference it'), the allowed status values, and the partial-update behavior. This goes beyond a simple statement of mutation and gives important behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a concise, structured Args list. Each line is succinct and informative, with no wasted words. The format is easy to parse and understand, making it ideal for an AI agent.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are not needed) and the tool has five parameters, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral side effects. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including edge cases like closing a version.

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 schema has no descriptions for any properties (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter in detail: version_id tells how to obtain it, name/description/due_date define the empty-as-leave-alone behavior, and status specifies the three allowed values and their consequence. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 starts with 'Update an existing version', which clearly states the verb (update), resource (version), and scope (existing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project_version and delete_version. The additional 'Only changes the fields that are provided' clarifies the update semantics, leaving no ambiguity.

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 clear context: it updates an existing version and clarifies that empty fields mean 'leave alone', which is a key usage rule. It also references 'use list_project_versions' to obtain the version_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for create/delete operations, so it stops short of a 5.

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