update_issue_note

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, and it only restates the mutation action. It does not reveal whether 'resolved' can be toggled independently of 'body', whether note_id and discussion_id are alternatives or jointly required, what happens when the note does not exist, or any permission/context requirements.

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?

A single six-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and containing zero filler. It is structurally efficient, though so terse that it sacrifices the informational substance a 6-parameter, annotation-free tool definition would benefit from.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must supply substantial context. It provides none beyond naming the operation: an agent cannot determine the minimal viable invocation, the expected return value, or how this note update differs from the many sibling note/discussion tools.

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 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Each parameter already has a clear schema description (e.g., 'resolved' = resolve or unresolve the note), so the description need not compensate; however, the interaction between parameters remains unresolved.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Modify') with a specific resource ('existing issue thread note'), and the 'issue' qualifier distinguishes this from note tools targeting merge requests (e.g., update_merge_request_note). It is not a tautology, though 'modify' largely echoes the 'update' already in the tool name, so the differentiation is modest.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as create_issue_note (new notes) or the various merge-request note tools. The description also provides no hint about parameter combinations, which matters here because all 6 parameters are optional and the relationship between note_id, discussion_id, issue_iid, and project_id is unexplained.

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