issue_update

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

The description discloses that labels and assignees are full replacements, a key behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden; it does not mention permissions or rate limits but is adequate for a straightforward update.

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 efficient sentences with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema, so return values are not explained. For 9 parameters, the description only partially covers semantics. Missing information on error conditions or idempotency.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description only partially explains parameter semantics. It covers labels and assignees behavior but omits stateReason, locked, and repo. More detail is needed for such a large parameter set.

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 'Update a generic issue in place' and lists the fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_create or issue_list.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing issue and explicitly notes that labels and assignees are full replacements. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use alternatives like comment addition.

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