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 behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the name. It does not say whether this is a partial/patch update (fields omitted are preserved), whether it requires permissions, whether setting status to resolved/closed has side effects, or whether it is idempotent. For a 10-parameter mutation tool this is a substantial 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 single five-word sentence is maximally concise and front-loaded. But conciseness here shades into under-specification: there is no structure or second sentence to convey the update semantics the tool actually needs, so it is terse rather than efficient.

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 a 10-parameter mutation tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits partial-update semantics, permission requirements, side effects of status transitions, and what the response contains – all of which an agent needs to call this 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 100%, so all ten parameters (including the required issue_id and the four enum fields) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither compensates for nor extends the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('issue'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like update_epic, update_story, or update_project, and gives no hint that this is a partial update of arbitrary fields. An agent knows what it does but not how it differs from the other update_* tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool (e.g., create_issue vs. update_issue, or closing an issue via status). The agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this modifies an existing issue rather than creating one.

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