edit_issue

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the genuinely useful fact that this is a PATCH-style partial update, so unspecified fields are untouched — meaningful behavior not derivable from annotations. It also discloses the array-command mechanism (add/remove/set/replace) for array fields, though it doesn't say what happens to invalid fields or whether the updated issue is returned.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the PATCH semantics before the array-command detail. Compact and well ordered, though the extraFields example overlaps the schema text and the array-command note could be trimmed.

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?

For a 22-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only terse annotations, the description covers the two subtlest behaviors (partial update, array-command syntax). It is close to complete; gaps such as return value, error handling, and identity of the item being edited are minor given the 100% schema coverage.

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 is 3 and the schema already documents all 22 fields. The description's array-command example largely restates what the extraFields schema description already says ("add/set/remove update commands like {...}"), adding only marginal value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Edit an existing issue") and clarifies the HTTP/mutation semantics as PATCH with partial-update behavior. It distinguishes the tool from full-replacement edits conceptually but never names the nearby siblings (bulk_update_issues, update_entity, move_issue, execute_transition) that an agent might confuse it 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?

The partial-update statement ("only provided fields are changed") implies when this tool is appropriate, and the extraFields sentence hints at array-field situations. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus bulk_update_issues or update_entity, no prerequisites, and no note about permissions needed to edit issues.

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