pylon_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates mutation ('Update') and specifies that tags are completely replaced, which is key behavioral info. However, it does not disclose whether the update returns the updated issue, permissions required, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and provides a clear alternative usage. Every sentence adds value without any redundancy or wasted words.

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 lists all updatable fields and includes guidance for tags. However, it does not explicitly state that only provided fields are updated (implied but not explicit) and lacks return value information (no output schema). For a simple update operation with clear parameters, it is mostly complete but misses these details.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds a note about tags replacement behavior, which is already present in the schema's tags description. It lists the updatable fields but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for the undocumented parameters (title, description, assignee).

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', listing the specific fields that can be updated (title, description, status, priority, assignee, or tags). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools pylon_add_tags and pylon_remove_tags by mentioning them as alternatives for tag modification.

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 explicitly tells when to use alternative tools: 'To add/remove tags without replacing all, use pylon_add_tags or pylon_remove_tags.' This provides clear guidance on when not to use this tool for tag operations.

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