Update Redmine Issue

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'Only provided fields will be changed' clarifies partial-update semantics, and 'Returns: Confirmation of update' discloses the response shape. The 'use 0 to unassign' detail for assigned_to_id is another useful behavioral nuance.

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 front-loaded with purpose and key behavior, followed by a compact, scannable Args list and a one-line return statement. Every line earns its place, and the grouping of parameters keeps the description short despite 15 parameters.

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?

The description covers most of what an agent needs: it names the operation, the partial-update behavior, the main parameters, and the return value. However, it omits custom_fields from the Args list (though the schema covers it) and does not address when to prefer this over redmine_add_note or redmine_create_issue, leaving minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args list mostly paraphrases the schema, but it does add light value by grouping tracker_id/status_id/priority_id as 'Change tracker, status, or priority' and by noting 'use 0 to unassign'. No significant semantic meaning is added 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 opens with 'Update an existing Redmine issue', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the operation. It also adds the partial-update qualifier 'Only provided fields will be changed', but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as redmine_add_note or redmine_create_issue.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'existing' and the update semantics; there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The inclusion of 'notes' as a parameter creates potential overlap with the sibling redmine_add_note, but no guidance is given to disambiguate.

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