update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: the append parameter explicitly says it appends to the end of a file versus replacing entirely, and the return value is a confirmation message. It lacks detail on failure modes or permissions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise and well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the main purpose, all parameters, and return type. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not needed. It lacks explicit edge-case handling or prerequisites, but for a straightforward update tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: iss_uniq_id is an 8-character unique ID, content is the new content to write or append, and append clarifies the append-vs-replace behavior. This adds meaning well beyond the raw 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 immediately states 'Update an issue's content by its unique ID', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_issue, read_issue, and move_issue by focusing on updating existing content via unique ID.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to update an issue's content), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the purpose is unambiguous and the context is clear, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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