update_issue_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Update an existing issue.' It does not disclose whether omitted fields are left unchanged, how null values are interpreted, whether the update is partial or full, or any permission or side-effect considerations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is maximally concise, though it sacrifices detail, which is captured in other dimensions.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. The output schema exists, but the description still fails to communicate partial-update behavior, null semantics, or state transitions like close/reopen, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action (update) and resource (existing issue), which distinguishes it from create_issue_tool and get_issue_tool. However, it does not elaborate on which fields can be updated or that it is a partial update, so it stops short of a fully detailed purpose statement.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like create_issue_tool or get_issue_tool, nor does it clarify scenarios where this tool should be preferred.

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