update_issue_template

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are modified'), which is not captured by readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true. It aligns with annotations and provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, 11 words—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary; no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward update tool.

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?

While the description covers the update action and partial semantics, it lacks information about return value (no output schema) and does not mention prerequisites or effects on non-provided fields. For an 8-parameter tool, additional context like 'returns the updated template' would improve completeness.

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?

With 88% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents parameters well. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning; it only reiterates the partial-update concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema richness.

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 explicitly states the action ('Update fields'), the resource ('existing Huly issue template'), and the semantics ('Only provided fields are modified'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue_template or delete_issue_template.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description ('Update fields on an existing...'), but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description does not guide the agent on when to choose this tool over other update tools among siblings.

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