redmine_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool updates without necessarily adding a note, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting unspecified fields, permission requirements, or response behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a clear alternative. Every word earns its place with no wasted content.

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 9 parameters and no output schema. The description provides clear purpose and usage guidance, which covers the key context for selection. However, it omits any mention of return value or typical response, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. Still, the description is adequate for most use cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists a few fields already in the schema (status, assignee, priority, due date) but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not compensate for any missing detail because none is missing.

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 clearly states the tool updates issue fields (status, assignee, priority, due date, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from redmine_add_note. The verb 'update' plus specific resource examples make the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated from siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use redmine_add_note if you want to post a comment. Use this for pure metadata changes.' This clearly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the alternative, which is excellent.

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