issue_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose permissions required, whether updates are partial or full replacements, how the nested fields object is handled, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted wording. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than precision, which is better assessed under contextual completeness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and a nested fields object, the description is too thin. It does not explain partial update semantics, field value formats, permissions, or how the site parameter affects the operation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including key, site, fields, and description as Markdown. The description adds little beyond naming the updatable areas, and it does not clarify the fields object structure or how summary and description interact with fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: update an issue's fields, summary, or description. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like issue_transition or issue_comment, which also modify issue-related data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as issue_transition, issue_comment, or page_update. It also omits prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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