Update Issue Note

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent update. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't clarify whether updates are partial or full, or if specific permissions are required. However, it doesn't contradict annotations. The description is adequate but could provide more detail on the update 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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loades the action and resource. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing critical details.

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 absence of an output schema and minimal annotations, the description should provide more context. It doesn't explain the expected effect on the note, whether updates are incremental, or what happens if invalid data is provided. The tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and moderate complexity, so the description is insufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the parameters. While names like issue_iid and note_id are somewhat self-explanatory, the relationship between body and resolved (e.g., can both be updated at once?) is unclear. The description says 'body or resolved state' but doesn't specify that both are optional or that at least one must change.

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 'issue discussion note', specifying the updatable aspects 'body or resolved state'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue_note or delete_issue_note, which have different purposes.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_update_merge_request_discussion_note) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or context that would help the agent choose this tool over others.

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