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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a GitHub issue'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, though it may be overly concise given the tool's complexity.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral details, or usage context. For a tool that modifies data in a system like GitHub, more information is needed to ensure correct invocation, especially with siblings like 'create_issue' and 'update_issue_comment' present.

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 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's inferred from the name (e.g., 'issueId' for identifying the issue). It doesn't explain what fields like 'milestoneId' or 'assignees' represent, their formats, or constraints. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Update a GitHub issue' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('GitHub issue'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_issue_comment' or 'update_milestone' that also update GitHub entities. The purpose is understandable but generic.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new issues vs. updating), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_issue' for initial creation. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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