Update Issue

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that only provided fields are changed (partial update), and specifies an error return when the issue tracker is disabled. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention persistence or rollback behavior.

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 very concise: a lead sentence followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Returns clause is provided. No redundant filler; every line adds value. For nine parameters and error handling, it's optimally structured.

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 9 parameters (2 required), presence of output schema, and complexity of a partial update tool, the description covers update behavior, parameter semantics, and error condition. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must fully explain parameters. It provides allowed values for 'state', 'kind', 'priority' enums, and clarifies optionality for all fields except required 'repo_slug' and 'issue_id'. This is excellent compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Update an issue (only the provided fields are changed).' The verb 'Update' paired with 'issue' makes the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_issue' (creation) and 'get_issue' (reading).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue_comment' or 'update_pull_request'. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on context-specific selection or exclusions. The sibling list provides implicit differentiation but the description itself lacks such guidance.

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