update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the mutation implied by the name and fails to disclose whether unchanged fields are preserved, how the issue is identified, whether permissions are required, or what response to expect.

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 sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, for a tool with 21 parameters, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification and does not provide meaningful structural guidance.

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?

Despite the rich schema, the description is not complete enough for an update operation with 21 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not state whether updates are partial, how the target issue is identified, or what side effects occur, leaving significant contextual gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the tool description. The schema already documents all 21 parameters, including nuanced semantics like 'pass an empty array to clear all versions,' while the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states the core function clearly with a verb+resource construction: 'Updates an existing issue.' It is accurate and specific to the issue resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling update tools like update_issue_comment or update_project beyond the resource name.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus add_issue, get_issue, or update_issue_comment, nor does it mention required identifiers, partial-update semantics, or any prerequisites.

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