updateIssue

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, implying mutation. The description adds important behavior: time_entry is optional but requires log-time permission and server support, and the instruction to verify both issue and time entry after saving addresses idempotency and timeout concerns. This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the optional time_entry capability, and ends with a verification instruction. No wasted words.

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 complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description provides adequate guidance: what it updates, the optional time_entry condition, and a verification step. It doesn't list all fields but the schema covers those; the description supplies the critical behavioral nuances (permissions, server support, verify step).

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does so by naming key updateable fields (notes, status, assignee) in the description, giving agents a quick understanding of the primary updatable params without opening the schema. It also indicates time_entry requires hours and is for logging time.

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 tool updates an issue and optionally saves a time entry in the same request. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like createIssue and updateTimeEntry by noting the combined action.

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 implies usage for updating issues, and mentions optional time_entry saving, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over updating an issue then separately creating a time entry, or when not to use it (e.g., for project updates). The note about verifying time entry suggests caution but lacks explicit alternatives.

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