mcp-github-project-manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving critical gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool and what to expect in return.

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%, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic information about the parameters—it does not explain what 'draftIssueId', 'title', 'body', or 'assigneeIds' represent, their formats, or constraints. This leaves the agent with minimal guidance on how to use the tool effectively.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing draft issue in a GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_project_item', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes a draft issue from other issue types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_issue', 'create_draft_issue', and 'delete_draft_issue', there is no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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