redmine_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the partial-update behavior and the purpose of notes, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as what the response contains, whether any permission is required, or how errors are surfaced. For a mutation tool, this is an acceptable but not comprehensive disclosure.

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, no fluff, and the core purpose ('Update an existing Redmine issue') is front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: the stability marker, the partial-update note, and the notes hint. This is a model of concise, structured writing.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't mention what the tool returns, how to obtain valid IDs for fields like status_id or custom_fields, or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). The description covers only the generic update semantics, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 15 parameters. It only explains 'notes' and gives a general 'only provided fields are changed' hint. Many parameters like done_ratio, tracker_id, and estimated_hours have unclear semantics without additional context. The description fails to explain these, leaving agents to guess from names, which is insufficient for such a complex tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and clear resource ('existing Redmine issue'), which immediately distinguishes it from create/delete/get operations. The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' further clarifies its scope. It is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings like redmine_create_issue and redmine_delete_issue.

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 a key usage guideline: 'Only provided fields are changed' signals a partial-update semantics, which is critical for agents to avoid sending full objects. It also gives a specific tip for 'notes' (add a journal comment). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_issue for new issues, get_issue for reading), leaving some inference to the agent.

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