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 and delivers nothing. It does not state whether omitted fields are preserved (partial update) or cleared, whether the caller needs permissions, whether changes are reversible, or that issue_id must reference a pre-existing issue. For a 19-parameter mutation tool this is a serious 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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is trivially front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline, which caps the score at adequate.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 5% schema coverage the description is wholly inadequate. It omits partial-update semantics, ID reference rules, and any field-level context.

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 5% across 19 parameters, and the description adds zero parameter meaning. Field names like status_id, tracker_id, category_id, and fixed_version_id imply lookup IDs with no hint of valid values, and custom_fields has no shape guidance anywhere.

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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim ('Update an existing issue' for update_issue). It conveys no scope, no indication of what fields can be updated, and does not distinguish it from siblings such as create_issue or delete_issue beyond the obvious verb.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that update_issue applies to existing issues and create_issue to new ones, which is trivially guessable but never stated.

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