Update an issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds moderate value by detailing the closing behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the update is a partial patch or a full replacement, nor does it discuss side effects or auth requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states general purpose, the second provides essential closing specifics. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and a key use case (closing). It does not describe the return format or patch semantics, but annotations partially compensate for safety context.

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 75%, and the description reinforces schema details for state and stateReason (closing guidance). It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for most parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high 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?

The title 'Update an issue' and description 'Update arbitrary fields of a Rootr (루터) issue' clearly specify the action (update) and resource (issue). The description also distinguishes it from sibling tools like rootr_create_issue, rootr_get_issue, etc., by explicitly stating it modifies existing issues.

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 a specific guideline for closing an issue (set state to CLOSED and stateReason accordingly). However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like rootr_create_issue or rootr_get_issue.

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