update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses partial update behavior (only provided fields changed) and the use of local numeric ID instead of UUID, adding valuable context beyond basic mutation. It does not cover return values or permissions, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each additional detail earns its place (partial update, ID type, get_issue prerequisite). No fluff or redundancy.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job covering the key operational aspects: update scope, partial update behavior, ID type, and a prerequisite. It lacks return value information, but the essentials for invoking the tool are present.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, satisfying the baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that only provided fields are updated, thereby explaining how the optional title/description/status parameters interact, and reinforces the issue_id semantics.

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's title, description, or status, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue and get_issue by highlighting modification of existing issues.

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?

Provides clear guidance to use get_issue first to see current values, which is a helpful prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or contrast with alternatives, but the partial update semantics and 'existing issue' phrasing imply the context.

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