Update Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context with 'schema-aware mutations' which suggests validation against a schema, but doesn't elaborate on what this means in practice. It doesn't disclose authentication requirements (implied by userCredentials parameter), rate limits, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. However, the phrase 'schema-aware mutations' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer. The structure is appropriate but could be slightly improved with more accessible language.

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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering basic safety (idempotent, non-destructive), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and fields but lacks details on authentication, error handling, partial updates, or response format. The context signals indicate moderate complexity that warrants more completeness than provided.

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 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description lists the updatable fields (title, description, assignees, labels, due date) which correspond to 5 parameters, adding some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between 'assigneeUsernames' and 'assignees' or provide format details for 'dueDate' beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and marginal description enhancement.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('issue'), and lists specific fields that can be modified (title, description, assignees, labels, due date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_issue' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_merge_request' which is a similar mutation operation on a different resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), when to choose this over other update tools like 'update_merge_request', or any constraints on usage. The phrase 'schema-aware mutations' is vague and doesn't provide practical usage guidance.

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