update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool updates a ticket and lists mutable fields. It does not clarify whether this is a partial update, whether existing values are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur.

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 compact sentence with the main operation front-loaded. The required/optional breakdown is useful and presented efficiently, though the parenthetical style is slightly dense.

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 five parameters and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It lacks update semantics, field value details, and any indication of result or error behavior, leaving an agent with significant gaps when calling the tool.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate, but it only restates which parameters are required or optional. It adds no meaning for fields like status_id or assigned_to_id, such as acceptable formats, allowed values, or relationships.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'チケットを更新する' (update ticket), making the core operation clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_issue and create_issue, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 only notes that issue_id is required and the other fields are optional, which is parameter guidance rather than usage context. It does not explain when to choose this tool over create_issue, get_issue, or list_issues, nor any exclusions.

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