Update Paperclip issue

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

Annotations already signal destructive, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context by calling the state 'authoritative' and noting it returns only a compact acknowledgement. It does not elaborate on what may be overwritten or which fields can have destructive effects, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, gives an immediate usage rule, states the key exclusion, and discloses the return behavior—all in minimal space.

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?

The tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and almost no per-parameter documentation. The description covers purpose and broad usage but does not provide enough guidance for an agent to confidently choose and populate fields in complex update scenarios, nor does it explain destructive consequences beyond the annotation.

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 6%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely maps to 'status/assignment/field changes and optional comments', but 17 parameters remain largely unexplained, including title, priority, labels, parent_id, project_id, hidden_at, interrupt, and blocked_by_issue_ids.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('authoritative issue state'), and the kinds of changes it supports ('status/assignment/field changes and optional comments'). It also distinguishes itself by saying 'never edit snapshot files', which separates it from related tools without 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: for status, assignment, field changes, and optional comments. It also gives a clear exclusion ('never edit snapshot files'), though it does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative.

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