update-issue-property-option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or response format. 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (mutation with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate this update operation safely and 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'project_id' as 'ID of the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an option for a dropdown/select issue property'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update-issue-property' or 'create-issue-property-option', which handle related but distinct operations on issue properties.

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., existing property/option), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'create-issue-property-option' (for new options) or 'update-issue-property' (for property-level changes), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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