paperclip_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates that the tool updates an issue and lists some fields; it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, how partial updates behave, what happens for invalid issue IDs, or any permission or side-effect context.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague, but the overall structure is appropriately short for the tool.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits return-value expectations, partial-update semantics, error behavior, and usage caveats, leaving the agent without important operational context beyond the schema.

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 input schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions and enums for status and priority (100% schema coverage). The description adds little beyond sampling a few field names, so it meets the baseline but does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding.

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 a clear resource ('an existing issue'), and it names several updateable fields like title, status, priority, and assignee. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as paperclip_create_issue, paperclip_get_issue, and paperclip_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checkout/release or create/delete. The phrase 'Update an existing issue' gives only a minimal sense of context, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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