gh_edit_issue

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

The description adds operational context beyond the annotations by explaining the tool is disabled without MCP_GH_ALLOW_WRITE_COMMANDS=true and requires human approval by default when MCP_GH_CONFIRM_WRITE_COMMANDS=true. This complements the destructiveHint reading, though it does not elaborate on what modifications are irreversible.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a concise operational note. It is well-structured and wastes no words, though the second sentence is slightly dense.

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 complex mutation tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, this description is too sparse. It lacks parameter semantics, usage scenarios, and any note about the return value. It covers safety gate but not functional completeness.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the 11 parameters (title, body, labels, assignees, milestone, etc.). The agent must infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for optional fields and the remove_milestone boolean.

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?

Clearly states 'Edit an existing issue in a repository,' which identifies the verb (edit), resource (issue), and context (repository). This distinguishes it from siblings like gh_create_issue (create) and gh_get_issue (read).

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 choose this tool versus alternatives such as gh_edit_pr or gh_create_issue. It only mentions environment variable prerequisites and approval, which are operational constraints, not usage context.

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