update_issue

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), description adds partial update behavior and markdown support for description. No contradictions; adds useful context for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose: verb, resource, partial update, markdown support.

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 simple update tool with high schema coverage and annotations providing idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description covers key aspects (partial update, markdown). Missing explicit mention of required identifiers but schema covers that.

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 86%, so description adds little per-parameter value beyond reinforcing markdown support. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as description doesn't introduce new parameter meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it updates fields on an existing Huly issue with partial update semantics ('only provided fields are modified'), distinguishing it from create_issue and other sibling tools like move_issue or delete_issue.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The partial update behavior is implied but not contrasted with tools like create_issue or move_issue. No when-not or alternative names provided.

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