Update Issue

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional context about side effects, partial updates, or response behavior beyond the minimal statement.

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 extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is not misleading, but it provides insufficient detail to be useful.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), field constraints, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 14 parameters (e.g., title, labels, weight). It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions, leaving the agent uninformed about field meanings.

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 'Update issue fields' is vague and essentially repeats the title. It does not specify which fields can be updated or how this tool differs from siblings like 'gitlab_update_issue_description_patch', which focuses on description updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for description-only updates, use 'update_issue_description_patch'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.