update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions verbosity levels and session defaults, but fails to specify critical aspects: what happens on invalid issue_id, whether changes are atomic, required permissions, or the return format. The mutation nature is implied but not detailed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences conveying the core action, verbosity options, and session behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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's complexity (update with dynamic kwargs), the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, error handling, or the nature of the output (despite an output schema existing). Lacks detail for safe usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only clarifies verbosity and session_id, while the critical parameter 'kwargs' (which likely holds fields to update) remains completely undefined. This is a severe gap for a mutation tool.

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 that the tool 'Updates details of an existing issue,' immediately distinguishing it from creation, deletion, or retrieval tools. It also mentions optional verbosity and session behavior, confirming its purpose.

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 implicitly suggests usage when an existing issue needs modification, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_issue or get_issue. No when-not-to-use or sibling contrast is given.

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