Update Issue Tool

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 usefully discloses the non-obvious state/state_reason coupling for reopening, but says nothing about required permissions, whether label changes are destructive/replacing, or reversibility of edits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose; the close/reopen mechanics follow immediately. The mid-sentence line breaks are a formatting blemish, not 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the main reason an agent would pick this tool (state transitions). It is slightly thin on permission/ownership prerequisites for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema lacks: the schema only says state is "open" or "closed", while the description explains that reopening requires state="open" paired with state_reason="reopened".

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update a GitHub issue") and adds the lifecycle scope (closing/reopening). Distinguishable from update_pull_request_tool by resource name alone, but it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like create_issue_tool or get_issue_tool.

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?

Gives concrete call recipes: state="closed" to close, state="open" with state_reason="reopened" to reopen. That is clear usage context, but there are no exclusions or guidance on when to prefer update_issue_tool over create_issue_comment_tool for adding commentary.

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