update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists fields that can be updated but fails to mention whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the issue does not exist, permission requirements, or the response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and key fields without any wasted words. It is clear and direct.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits essential context about required parameters, partial update behavior, error handling, and access requirements. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool in complex scenarios.

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 only 13%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. It enumerates five of the eight parameters but does not explain required identifiers (owner, repo, issue_number) or the semantics of fields like state or labels. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Update an existing issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue and issue_read. The parenthesized list of updatable fields (title, body, state, labels, assignees) further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 word 'existing' provides clear context that this tool is for updates, not creation, which implicitly distinguishes it from create_issue. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_pull_request or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions.

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