Update Issue

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that it performs 'schema-aware mutations,' implying validation, but doesn't detail side effects or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameters. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

The description lacks details about the response format, error states, or behavior when certain fields are omitted. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, more context would be helpful, though schema covers some gaps.

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 50% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by enumerating updatable fields (title, assignees, etc.) not fully detailed in the schema. It omits required params like projectPath and iid, which are already well-described in 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 clearly states 'Update an issue' and lists specific mutable fields (title, description, assignees, labels, due date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue and delete_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 this tool is for modifying existing issues, contrasting with create_issue for new issues. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over other update tools like update_merge_request.

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