update-issue-property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on existing data), rate limits, or what the response might contain. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing issue property'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'issue property' is, how updates affect related data, what values are returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that modifies properties with multiple inputs, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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%, with all 8 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'project_id' as 'ID of the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Update an existing issue property' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update-issue-property' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('issue property'), but provides no additional context about what an 'issue property' entails or how this differs from similar tools like 'update-issue' or 'create-issue-property'. This is a basic restatement rather than a helpful clarification.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing property), contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'create-issue-property' for new properties, 'delete-issue-property' for removal, or 'update-issue' for broader issue modifications), or specify any contextual constraints. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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