edit_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, but it reveals nothing beyond the fact that an edit occurs. It fails to mention notification behavior, screen security overrides, whether the issue is returned, or any side effects, making it nearly useless for predicting tool behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. 'Edit issue' earns no space because it merely repeats the tool name without conveying any useful, non-redundant information.

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?

This is a complex tool with seven parameters, a nested request body, and many related sibling tools, yet the description provides no context about how to structure an edit, what the response contains, or how this differs from other issue-modification tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this even more inadequate.

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 of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the input schema already documents all seven parameters, including the nested body object, issueIdOrKey, expand, notifyUsers, returnIssue, and override flags.

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 'Edit issue' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any information about what editing an issue entails. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like do_transition, assign_issue, or submit_bulk_edit, which also modify issues in some way.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it edits fields, applies transitions, or when to prefer do_transition or submit_bulk_edit instead, leaving the agent without routing information.

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