update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists fields without explaining that labels and assignees replace existing ones, or mentioning permissions, reversibility, or effects on omitted fields. This is insufficient 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core action and key fields. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context like how partial updates behave, whether the issue must exist, what the response contains, and how to uniquely identify the issue (issue_number).

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 baseline is 3. The description merely lists field names (title, body, state, labels, assignees) without adding extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the replacement behavior for labels and assignees.

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 updates an existing issue, using the specific verb 'Actualiza' and listing the mutable fields (title, body, state, labels, assignees). This distinguishes it from create_issue and close_issue by emphasizing the 'existing' resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for modifying existing issues, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over close_issue or create_issue. It lacks alternative recommendations or exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity with the close_issue sibling that can also set state to closed.

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