Update issue

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

Annotations indicate it's a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. Description adds context about partial update semantics and the ability to preview via dry_run, which helps the agent understand side effects.

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?

Description is a single well-organized paragraph with no redundancy. Front-loaded with main purpose, then field details, then usage tips. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of nested fields and no output schema, the description covers input fields and usage (dry_run, note). It doesn't describe the return value, but that is partially mitigated by the lack of output schema requirement.

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 high (80%). The description adds value by explaining how to specify fields like status with {name} or {id} and handler with {name: '<login>'}, and clarifying custom_fields structure. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 it performs a partial update (PATCH) of an issue. It lists all updatable fields and distinguishes from sibling tools like mantis_resolve_issue, establishing a specific resource and action.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use this tool: sets both status and resolution for resolving issues (or use mantis_resolve_issue), optionally appends a note, and uses dry_run for preview. Provides clear context and alternatives.

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