Update Issue

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the partial PATCH behavior, rejects unknown keys, and includes the important caveat about setting both status and resolution when resolving. This adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with the core action, then listing fields in a clear bullet-like style, and ending with an important usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (many fields, nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description covers input semantics thoroughly. It lacks information about success/failure responses or side effects, but for a partial update tool, the input focus is appropriate. A minor gap is the behavior of the dry_run parameter, which is described in the schema but not in the description itself.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enhances understanding by listing all valid field keys with their exact formats (e.g., status with enum values, resolution as { id: 20 }, handler with id or name). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions (e.g., just 'object') and provides actionable detail.

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 tool updates one or more fields of an existing MantisBT issue using a partial PATCH. This distinguishes it from create, delete, or list operations among siblings.

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 detailed field formats and a specific guideline for resolving issues, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_issue or when not to use it. Usage guidance is adequate but lacks exclusivity or context-driven recommendations.

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