update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Only provided fields will be updated,' which is useful partial behavior disclosure (partial updates). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema). For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place—the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second adds important behavioral context about partial updates. There's zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. While it states the purpose and partial update behavior, it doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, response format, or usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a tool that modifies existing issues, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 13 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general 'Only provided fields will be updated' statement, which reinforces the partial update behavior but doesn't provide additional semantic context for individual parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 target resource ('an existing Redmine issue/ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'add_comment', but the 'existing' qualifier provides some distinction. The purpose is specific but could be more distinctive.

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 issue_id), when to choose update_issue over create_issue for modifications, or how it differs from add_comment for adding notes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter list alone.

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