update_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destructive profile is known. The description corroborates this ('Изменяет данные в Трекере') and adds a genuinely useful behavioural note about user confirmation, but says nothing about which fields are mutable, reversibility, or permission 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the caution. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence mixes a behavioural fact with a workflow instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive update whose only payload is an undocumented free-form object, the description omits what can be updated and what constraints apply – a significant gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 0%, and 'fields' is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties=true, so the agent has no idea what keys or formats to supply. The description mentions 'поля' but never enumerates or illustrates them, leaving the critical parameter fully opaque.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Обновить поля существующей задачи' – update fields of an existing issue), which an agent can distinguish from create_issue or execute_transition without opening the schema. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling it contrasts with.

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?

It gives one concrete operational guideline: show the changes to the user before invoking ('покажите изменения пользователю перед вызовом'). This is useful pre-call guidance but is about confirmation workflow, not about when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., execute_transition), so usage is only implied.

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