update_issue

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

Description discloses key behavioral traits: PATCH semantics (only provided fields change), label replacement risk, state enum values. However, without annotations, it lacks details on authorization needs, rate limits, response format, or behavior of other fields like assignees (full replacement or append?).

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 concise sentences front-load the core operation (PATCH, index-based update) and then address the key risk. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (PATCH semantics, label risk, state option, milestone by ID). Lacks explicit mention of assignee behavior (replace or merge?) but schema and lack of output schema are offset by clear warnings. Overall adequately complete.

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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage for all 10 parameters. The description adds significant value only for 'labels' (explaining replacement behavior) and mentions state enum explicitly. For most other parameters, the description does not go beyond schema info.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Update one issue by index'), resource (issue), and method (PATCH). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by pointing out the label replacement risk and recommending alternative tools for single-label changes.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives for label management ('to change a single label use add_issue_labels/remove_issue_label instead'). However, it does not discuss when to use other update tools for related resources (e.g., update_comment, update_label) which are distinct.

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