update_issue

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. It only states 'update' (mutation) and lists fields, but fails to disclose side effects like notifications, timestamp changes, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 8 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or that fields like labels/assignees are replaced. It is adequate for a simple update but lacks completeness for a tool with multiple optional fields.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The tool description merely repeats the field names without adding new meaning (e.g., it does not clarify that labels and assignees are replaced, not appended, though the schema's 'Replace labels' description partially covers that). No additional value beyond 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 verb 'update' and the resource 'existing issue', and lists the specific fields that can be updated: title, body, state, labels, or assignees. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue and add_labels by focusing on update and replacement semantics.

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 implies usage for updating specific fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with add_labels for adding vs replacing labels, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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