update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely important trait: Redmine silently discards invalid custom_field values while still returning 204, so the caller should re-verify with get_issue. It also makes the uploads ordering dependency explicit. It stops short of covering permissions, reversibility, or the behavior of the remaining unlisted fields.

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 purpose and the comment shortcut are front-loaded in one line, then a structured Args block follows. It is compact with no filler, though the mixed purpose-plus-parameter-prose format is slightly less front-loaded than ideal.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema already covering returns, the description covers the tricky parameters well but omits 4 of them and says nothing about required permissions or whether changes are reversible. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 must carry everything, and it documents 6 of 10 parameters with real semantics: status_id is a numeric ID to look up in list_metadata, done_ratio is 0-100, and custom_fields/uploads get concrete JSON shape examples plus a call-order note. subject, description, priority_id and assigned_to_id are left entirely undefined, which is the gap.

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 opening line states a specific verb + resource ('チケットを更新する' / update a ticket), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_issue, get_issue and delete_issue by operation. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or scoping distinction the way a top-tier definition would.

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?

It gives a real usage hint for one case ('to add a comment, just pass notes') and points to prerequisites for two parameters (list_metadata for status_id, upload_attachment before uploads). It never states when to choose this over update_time_entry or update_project, or when not to use it, so selection guidance is only partial.

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