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 not state that unspecified fields are left unchanged, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are needed, or that issue_id is required and immutable. 'One or more fields' hints at partial update semantics, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is well-structured. It is arguably too terse for five parameters, but there is no wasted language.

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?

For a mutation tool with five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, this definition leaves too much unspecified. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the partial-update contract and parameter meaning are missing.

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 would need to compensate. It conveys only that some subset of fields may be updated, without naming the updatable fields (title, status, priority, description) or explaining the allowed status/priority enum values or the meaning of null defaults.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Update ... an existing issue') and clarifies scope with 'one or more fields', which distinguishes it from create_issue and delete_issue by implication. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisite (e.g. the issue must exist), and no guidance on partial vs full updates. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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