update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('Update') but does not explain whether partial updates are supported, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. It also doesn't disclose error behavior or permission requirements, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 appropriately concise: a single sentence followed by a structured argument list. It avoids verbose explanation, making it easy to scan. However, the parameter list is largely redundant with the schema, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It fails to explain whether omitted fields are left unchanged, what the shape of the updated issue is, or whether all fields are optional beyond the two required IDs. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with a one-line phrase like 'Updated issue name' or 'Updated state UUID,' which merely echoes the schema's titles and adds the word 'Updated.' It fails to explain the meaning of 'state UUID,' valid priority values, or the formatting of labels/assignees. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 tool's function: 'Update an existing issue.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like create_issue and delete_issue. However, it doesn't elaborate on the scope or unique aspects of updating an issue, so it falls short of a 5.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where other tools (e.g., create_issue) would be more appropriate, or any exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextualizing it.

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