update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool validates relationships and preserves an audit trail, automatically refreshes timestamps while preserving metadata, and includes a 'force' parameter for bypassing validation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error conditions or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, available values, updatable properties, common patterns, behavioral notes) and front-loaded key information. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the introductory paragraph is slightly verbose), but overall it efficiently conveys necessary details without significant waste.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior. It explains status workflows, priority levels, and update patterns. The main gap is the lack of output details (what the tool returns), but otherwise it provides strong contextual completeness for effective agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of 'status' and 'priority' with enumerated values and workflows, detailing what 'prerequisites' represents (dependency relationships), and clarifying the purpose of 'force' (bypass validation). It also provides common usage patterns that illustrate parameter combinations, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Updates an existing issue') and resource ('in the task trellis system'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_issue' and 'delete_issue'. It explicitly lists what can be modified (status, priority, prerequisites, content), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to modify properties of existing issues') and includes specific examples of common update patterns. It also advises on when to use the 'force' parameter ('only when bypassing standard validation is necessary for administrative operations'), offering clear usage context and exclusions.

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