updateIssue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by clarifying PATCH semantics ('omitted fields remain unchanged') and the journal-entry limitation, though it omits permission requirements and failure modes.

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 sentences, both earning their place. The mutation contract is front-loaded and the sibling routing follows immediately with no filler.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and for a 17-parameter mutation the key semantic (partial update, one issue) is stated. It is slightly thin on caveats such as permission needs, validation errors, and the customFieldsJson encoding, which the schema only briefly hints at.

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 71% and the schema documents formats, clearing conventions, and lookup-tool provenance. The description contributes the important partial-update contract (omitted fields unchanged) but gives no per-parameter guidance beyond that, which matches the baseline when the schema does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Modify) and resource (one existing Redmine issue), and explicitly scopes behavior to 'only the supplied fields'. It also names a sibling (addIssueNote) and excludes journal editing, which disambiguates it from the write-oriented siblings.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use addIssueNote for comment-only changes. It also states a when-not ('does not edit existing journal entries'). It stops short of covering other near neighbors like createIssue or getIssueJournal, so not a full 5.

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