Edit issue metadata

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds significant context: it is a destructive write requiring ordinary authorization, performs a single mutation attempt with semantic readback, never auto-retries ambiguous mutations, and does not circumvent repository policy. This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'Destructive write', no redundant phrases, and every sentence adds distinct information. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool, the description covers authorization, scope (one issue), readback verification, retry policy, and exclusions. Output schema covers return values, so omitting them here is appropriate. The description is complete for a complex tool.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly lists mutable field categories but does not clarify per-parameter semantics such as null handling or interaction between add/remove arrays. This adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 edits metadata on exactly one existing issue and enumerates the mutable fields (title, body, labels, assignees, milestone). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not do (close/reopen, post comments, delete), removing ambiguity.

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?

Provides when-to-use context ('exactly one existing issue', 'ordinary write authorization') and when-not-to-use exclusions (does not close/reopen, post comments, delete, bypass policy). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for these excluded actions, stopping short of full alternative guidance.

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