update-issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that updating the title with 'delete' or 'remove' triggers deletion, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it fails to disclose other important behaviors: whether this is a mutation (implied but not stated), what permissions are needed, how partial updates work, or what the response looks like. The deletion hint adds some value but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 run-on sentence that mixes update instructions with a cryptic deletion hint, lacking clear structure. It's not front-loaded with essential information, and the deletion advice feels tacked on without proper context. While brief, it's inefficient and could be better organized for clarity.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, mutation tool) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at deletion behavior but misses critical context: no explanation of what 'update' entails beyond the title, no error handling, no response format, and no integration with sibling tools. For a tool with this scope, more guidance is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints. The mention of title updates for deletion is confusing and doesn't clarify the 'name' parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Update an existing issue') and resource ('in a project'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what fields can be updated beyond the title, and the mention of deletion via title update is confusing rather than clarifying. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'update-intake-issue' or 'update-issue-comment'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create-issue' for new issues or other update tools for specific issue components. The deletion hint is misleading rather than helpful for usage decisions.

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