Manage Issues

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the capability list: it does not say which actions are destructive, what permissions or side effects to expect, or how the multi-action dispatcher behaves.

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-loads the resource and operation families, and contains no filler. It is compact for a tool of this size, though the dense operation list could have been structured more usefully.

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 22 actions, 34 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is far too thin. It names the operation families but leaves action-specific parameter requirements, selection rules, and destructive-operation details undocumented.

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 only 12% across 34 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It only mentions the `action` field, which is already documented in the schema, and adds no mapping from actions to required parameters such as repo, owner, issueNumber, query, or the comment/draft identifiers.

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 states the resource (GitHub Issues) and enumerates the main operation families: create/list/get/update, comments, drafts, search, and sub-issues. It is clear what the tool does, though the umbrella verb 'manage' is broad and the description does not differentiate this tool from siblings beyond the resource.

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?

It says to use the `action` field to select the operation, which is invocation guidance but not a when-to-use rule. It gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives for choosing this tool over related tools such as manage_project or manage_prs.

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