gh_issue_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive 'Replace' behavior and reveals an implementation detail ('Body is passed via a temp file'), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or reversibility, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 short sentences with no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral detail about the temp file. This is an exemplar of minimal effective structure.

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 simple 3-param tool and the presence of an output schema, the description plus schema is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and edge-case context (e.g., behavior for non-existent issues or permission requirements), which prevents a higher score.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds a small note about the body being passed via a temp file, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Replace an issue's body' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gh_issue_create, gh_issue_comment, and gh_pr_create by focusing on editing an existing issue's body rather than creating or commenting.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that one should use gh_issue_create for new issues or that this tool only handles body edits, leaving the agent to infer the context from the description.

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