update_issue

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior (PATCH semantics, automatic normalization of localized IDs), but says nothing about permission requirements, whether status changes trigger side effects/workflows, or what happens when an ID is invalid.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update rule, followed by the ID-lookup pointer. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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?

Adequate for a 7-param mutation with full schema descriptions, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about consequences and return behavior — e.g. whether an empty body is a no-op, whether clearing a field is possible (additionalProperties: false, no null handling stated).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that only changed fields need sending (clarifying that the five optional params are optional-in-practice) and where to source the numeric TypeId/StatusId values. It does not define the Resolution field's semantics.

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+resource (update issue fields) and the mechanism (PATCH), which an agent can distinguish from create_issue and the task/project updaters in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is *not*, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concrete operating guidance: 'send only the fields to change' defines partial-update usage, and it names get_reference_data with the exact entity keys ('issuestatuses', 'issuetypes') for resolving TypeId/StatusId. No explicit when-not-to-use or error/precondition guidance, which keeps it below 5.

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