Modify GitHub issue details like title, description, status, assignees, labels, and milestone to keep project tracking current.
Update a GitHub issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| milestoneId | Yes | ||
| assignees | No | ||
| labels | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to fields not specified. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise at just three words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description provides no information about what the parameters mean or how to use them. It doesn't explain what 'issueId' refers to, what format 'assignees' expects, or what the 'status' enum represents. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'update_milestone' or 'update_project' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
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 'create_issue' for creation and 'get_issue' for reading, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for this update operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.