update_issue_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is an update/mutation operation, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when only some fields are provided. The simple 'Returns: 更新結果訊息' gives minimal information about output format.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. While somewhat lengthy due to the many parameters, every sentence adds value. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose first, followed by detailed parameter explanations.

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 mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job. The parameter documentation is excellent, but behavioral aspects are under-specified. The description doesn't explain what '更新結果訊息' contains or provide context about typical error conditions. Given the complexity, more behavioral transparency would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, optionality, constraints (like '0-100' for done_ratio), format requirements ('YYYY-MM-DD'), and mutual exclusivity rules ('priority_id 與 priority_name 二選一'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '更新議題內容' (update issue content) and lists specific fields that can be updated (title, description, priority, completion ratio, tracker, dates, hours). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_issue_status', the specificity of the fields mentioned makes the purpose clear.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue_status' or 'assign_issue'. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The only implicit guidance is that it updates multiple fields at once, but this isn't explicitly stated as a distinguishing factor.

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