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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates an issue, but does not explain whether the update is partial (PATCH semantics), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or how the response is structured. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, tightly scoped sentence followed by a relevant documentation link. Both elements earn their place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant text. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

With 9 parameters, 3 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse for the tool's complexity. Critical operational context is missing, such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged, how state_reason interacts with state, and what the tool returns upon success. The docs link helps but does not compensate for the absence of this context in the description itself.

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 100% parameter description coverage, with every property including body, state, labels, assignees, and state_reason clearly documented. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already does the heavy lifting. The enums for state and state_reason are also captured 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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Update an existing issue in a GitHub repository.' The word 'existing' clearly distinguishes this from create_issue, and the resource (issue) is explicit. This is a clear and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 like create_issue, update_pull_request, or add_comment. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when this tool should be chosen. The provided docs link is a resource, not inline usage guidance.

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