update-issue-type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing data not mentioned in parameters, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or what constitutes a successful update. The agent would need to guess about important operational context that should be disclosed for a tool that modifies data.

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 already fully documents all four parameters (project_id, type_id, name, description) with their types and optional/required status. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 type' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('issue type'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update-issue, update-cycle, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes issue type updates from other entity updates.

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. With multiple update tools in the sibling list (update-issue, update-cycle, update-state, etc.), there's no indication of when issue type updates are appropriate versus other entity updates, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints for using this tool.

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