update_issue_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key mutation behavior around closing and reopening an issue, which is meaningful. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, label replacement behavior, or other side effects, so it is 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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and no filler. The second sentence provides essential state-transition details that directly help the agent call the tool correctly.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the non-obvious state behavior well. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it would benefit from guidance on alternatives.

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 adds extra semantics by explaining the state/state_reason combination for closing versus reopening. It does not elaborate on title, body, or labels, but those are already described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update a GitHub issue' and explicitly scopes to closing/reopening. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling update_pull_request_tool or mention when to choose this over create/update alternatives.

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 concrete how-to guidance for state transitions: 'Set state="closed" to close an issue' and 'Set state="open" with state_reason="reopened" to reopen.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like create_issue_tool or update_pull_request_tool, so the usage context is mostly implied.

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