update_issue

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

The description only states the action without revealing behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or behavior on missing issues. Since no annotations are provided, the description should disclose more about the tool's operation (e.g., whether it partially updates or replaces fields).

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 extremely brief (4 words). While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It does not earn its place as every sentence should; a single sentence that is too vague is not optimal.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or the impact of partial updates. More context is needed for effective agent usage.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the tool description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 verb-resource pair 'Update an existing issue', indicating the action and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_issue or get_issue through the word 'Update', but does not explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., update_comment).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_issue or update_comment. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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