update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavior that title and body are replaced in full, which is valuable. Yet it omits other behavioral details such as permissions, reversibility, or effects on unspecified fields, making it adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It supplies the essential scope and the most important behavioral caveat. A small gap is the lack of explicit contextual guidance like 'use for existing issues only,' but overall it is complete for a straightforward update tool.

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 100%—all five parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description only reiterates the replacement behavior already present in the schema, adding no new semantic information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates an issue's title, body, or state with the specific verb 'update' and identifies the resource. It also adds a key behavioral nuance ('Title/body replace in full') and is easily distinguished from siblings like get_issue and create_issue.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is for modifying existing issues. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_issue for new issues) or any exclusions, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level.

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