Update issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that it can close/reopen issues, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and offers meaningful context about state changes.

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 a single, focused sentence: 'Edits an issue, including closing/reopening it.' It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains zero fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the core functionality.

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?

This is a complex tool with 13 parameters, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain return values (no output schema), partial update behavior, or any nuances beyond the state change. The context provided is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and side effects.

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 only 15%, with just 2 of 13 parameters documented. The description only hints at the state_event parameter via 'closing/reopening', providing no semantic help for the other 11 parameters like title, weight, assignee_ids, or confidential. Given low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Edits' with the resource 'issue', and adds the key scope 'including closing/reopening it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_issue and gitlab_delete_issue, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 (use this to modify an issue) but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or reference sibling tools such as gitlab_create_issue or gitlab_get_issue, so guidance is only implied.

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