gh_issue_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies mutation but nothing is said about permissions, reversibility, whether partial updates are OK (only provided fields changed), or what happens when conflicting update fields (e.g., assignee + add/remove labels) are combined. Minimal disclosure, no contradictions.

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?

A single concise sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and the primary mutable fields. No wasted words, adequately front-loaded. Slightly more detail on usage or semantics could have been added, but the economy is reasonable.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and accepted fields but omits important context: whether updates are partial or full replacement, permission requirements for labels vs assignee, and behavior when no editable fields are supplied (an issue with no mutable fields passed). Acceptable but leaves the agent guessing on edge cases.

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 each of the 7 parameters carries a description in the schema itself. The tool description adds the behavioral nuance that this is an 'edit' targeting multiple mutable aspects (assignee, labels, title, state), but doesn't explain semantics like whether add_labels/remove_labels are mutually exclusive or how assignee interacts with existing assignees. Baseline 3 holds given full schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Edit a GitHub issue') with a specific list of editable fields (assignee, labels, title, state). This distinguishes it well from gh_issue_view, gh_issue_create, and gh_issue_comment among siblings. It's specific enough though it doesn't name itself as distinct from gh_issue_create beyond the edit verb.

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 implies it edits an existing issue (use view/create for other operations), but it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and doesn't enumerate the sibling operations (view, comment, create) it competes with. Adequate but the guidance is only implied by the verbs.

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