update_issue_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and lists parameters. It does not mention whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or a full replacement, what happens when passing null for optional fields, required permissions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core statement, followed by a compact list of parameters. Every line provides necessary information—there is no filler or redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 covers the core purpose and all parameters, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, it lacks behavioral details such as partial-update semantics, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., the issue type must exist). For a simple update tool, this is adequate but not rich enough to fully prepare the agent for edge cases.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role, e.g., 'project_id: The UUID identifier of the project' and 'name: New name for the issue type.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's types, distinguishing ID fields from update fields. However, some descriptions (like 'icon: New icon identifier') are vague, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 type.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('issue type'), and the modifier 'existing' distinguishes it from 'create_issue_type' and 'delete_issue_type' in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'existing issue type' implies this tool is for modifying already-created issue types, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like 'create_issue_type' or 'delete_issue_type.' The usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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