update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that empty parameters keep existing values, and that previous values are returned for rollback, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention destructive actions beyond normal updates.

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 well-structured with a brief intro followed by a parameter list. It is clear and not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping common behaviors.

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 has 10 optional parameters, the description covers all parameters, explains behavior for empty values, and notes the return of previous values. It lacks mention of error handling or permissions, but the output schema exists, reducing the need for return format details.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description provides all meaning. It explains each parameter, including defaults (e.g., 'empty = keep' or 'empty = skip'), which goes beyond the schema titles.

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 it updates fields of a YouTrack issue, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like transition_issue or add_comment. It mentions returning previous values for rollback, implying a use case, but lacks explicit guidance.

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