update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Updates an issue' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when null values are provided. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed. No wasted words, but the structure is basic.

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?

Given 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description should do more to cover permissions, validation, and sibling differentiation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a parameter list with brief explanations (e.g., 'Issue number', 'New subject', 'Comment') which adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't explain ID relationships (e.g., what status_id values are valid) or provide examples, leaving some gaps.

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 states 'Updates an issue' which clearly indicates the verb and resource, but it's vague about what specific fields can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_journal' or explain how it differs from 'create_issue'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_issue', 'get_issue', or 'update_journal'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), context for updates, or exclusions. Usage is implied through parameter names but not explicitly stated.

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