update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only statement is 'Update an existing issue,' which adds nothing beyond the tool name. It does not disclose whether updates replace fields (e.g., tags and followers per schema), whether certain fields are cleared with null, any authorization requirements, or side effects. This is a complete absence of behavioral transparency.

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 short and contains no wasteful words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified to the point where the single sentence adds no value beyond the tool name itself. While it is not verbose, it also does not earn its place in a meaningful way, making a middle score appropriate.

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?

This is a complex tool with 17 parameters and no annotations. The description 'Update an existing issue' provides almost no context about what updating entails, how the parameters interact, or any constraints. Even though an output schema exists, the tool's complexity demands a richer description to guide usage. This is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with every parameter having a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but it does not need to because the schema already provides detailed meanings for all 17 parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing issue' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (issue), which is specific enough to know the tool's basic function. However, it does not mention what can be updated or distinguish it from sibling tools like transition_issue or move_issue, which also modify issues. It is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate whether to use this instead of transition_issue for status changes or add_comment for comments. No usage context is provided at all.

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