Github Update Issue

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

The description adds the valuable behavioral detail that only supplied fields are updated, the rest remain unchanged—this partial-update semantics is not in the annotations. It also points to a skill for workflow/conventions, providing additional context beyond the schema and annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral detail is concise. Every word earns its place, and the skill reference is efficiently integrated.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (partial update) and points to a skill for deeper workflow. It doesn't mention authentication or edge cases, but those are implied by annotations and the output schema. It's complete enough for an agent to call 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?

The schema already covers parameter descriptions for body, state, title, and labels, and the remaining params (repo_name, repo_owner, issue_number) are self-explanatory. The description does not add param-specific meaning beyond the schema, and coverage is moderate (57%), so it neither compensates nor repeats excessively.

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 clearly that it updates an existing issue, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from creating (github_create_issue) and updating pull requests (github_update_pr), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 implies usage on existing issues but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_issue or set_issue_milestone. The reference to a skill suggests additional workflow guidance, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use directives are given.

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