Update issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the absolute-fields versus relative-update distinction and gives a concrete labels example, but it does not mention permissions, effects on unspecified fields, return behavior, or destructive consequences.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the example compactly illustrates both parameter styles without redundant explanation.

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 nested-object complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the essential calling semantics well. Minor gaps remain around auth expectations, response shape, and exact behavior for unspecified fields, but these do not block correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that 'fields' expects absolute values while 'update' expects relative add/remove operations, with a clear example.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update an issue') and immediately explains the two distinct update modes. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_issue, delete_issue, and transition_issue.

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 implies usage for modifying existing issue fields or labels, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives like transition_issue, assign_issue, or create_issue. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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