update_issue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that state changes are 'reversible', which is useful context beyond the annotations. It accurately characterizes the operation as non-destructive and supports the idempotent hint (re-setting the same title is harmless). No contradiction found.

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?

A single, tight sentence that names the action, the resources, and the specific fields being modified. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It names updatable fields and reversibility, but doesn't mention what happens on partial updates (which fields are required vs optional), whether an issue number must exist first, or any permission details. Given 7 parameters and 14% schema coverage, it's minimally viable but leaves 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 only 14%, so the description carries some burden but lists only 3 of 7 parameters (title, body, state). It does not explain account, repository, issueNumber, or hostname beyond what the schema provides (which is minimal except repository's 'owner/name format'). The description adds meaning for the updatable fields but omits context for 4 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('issue') and lists the updateable fields (title, body, open/closed state). It also scopes to 'allowed repository', which adds clarity. It distinguishes reasonably from create_issue/comment_issue, though doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 this is the tool for modifying an existing issue's content or state. It notes 'reversible' state changes, which hints at non-destructive use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like comment_issue or update_pull_request, and the phrase 'allowed repository' is vague without clarifying permissions.

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