github_update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions (e.g., write access to the repo), whether updates are partial or full (e.g., 'labels' and 'assignees' replace existing as per schema, but description doesn't highlight this), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero waste—'Update an existing issue' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what fields can be updated, how partial updates work, authentication needs, or expected return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema fully documents all 8 parameters, including their types, descriptions, and constraints (e.g., 'state' enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing issue' clearly states the action (update) and resource (issue), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_create_issue' or 'github_create_comment' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit distinction about modifying versus creating resources.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'github_create_issue' for new issues or 'github_list_issues' to find issue numbers, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing issue number. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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