redmine_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed') but omits details on permissions, side effects, return values, or validation. Basic but incomplete.

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 concise, front-loading the stability marker and purpose. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, but it earns high marks for efficiency.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, errors, or detailed parameter usage, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0% and the description only mentions 'notes' as adding a journal comment. For 13 parameters, this is insufficient compensation. Most parameters lack any semantic explanation beyond the schema.

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 'Update an existing Redmine issue' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'redmine_create_issue' and 'redmine_delete_issue' by implying mutation on an existing entity, and adds extra detail about partial updates and 'notes' parameter.

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 when to use (update an existing issue) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It provides some guidance on the 'notes' parameter but lacks exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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