Edit a GitHub issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real behavior: body fully replaces while append_body appends after a blank line, kind replaces other type: labels, a missing milestone errors unless create_milestone is true, and added assignees are notified. That last point (side-effect notification) and the error condition are genuine value beyond structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and enumerates fields, with parentheticals carrying the important caveats; little is wasted. It is compact but very long, which slightly taxes scanning.

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 13-param mutation tool it covers permissions, destructive replacement semantics, error handling for milestones, and notification side effects, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Only the alternative-routing guidance is thin.

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 85%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning on top by explaining the interaction between body and append_body, the kind fallback to a type:<kind> label that replaces other type labels, and that a bare number resolves against the working tree's repo or the repo param. These are relational semantics the per-parameter schema does not state.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change an issue') and enumerates exactly which attributes can be edited, letting an agent distinguish it from github_issue_close, reopen, or comment by exclusion. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Change an issue in one call' implies batching multiple edits into a single invocation, and 'Needs write permission on the repository' states a prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative for state transitions (close/reopen) or discussion (comment), which is left to inference.

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