update_issue

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

The annotations give readOnlyHint=false, confirming mutation capability. The description adds value by explaining the dry_run behavior, which is a safety mechanism. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permission requirements or failure modes, though annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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 two sentences long: the first states the purpose, the second explains the crucial dry_run workflow. It is front-loaded and every sentence is essential. No redundancy.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the important dry_run mechanism. It could mention what the preview returns, but the schema already documents all parameters. The description is mostly complete for guiding agent usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The dry_run behavior is mentioned in the description, but the schema already describes it well. No additional semantic value.

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 states 'Mettre a jour une issue existante' (update an existing issue), clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like close_issue or update_issue_note, so it misses the opportunity for clear differentiation.

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 guidance on using dry_run=true for preview and dry_run=false for actual modification, but it does not advise when to use this tool over alternative sibling tools (e.g., update_issue_note for notes). The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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