update_issue_description_patch

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

Annotations set openWorldHint=true, so description carries low burden. It adds context about dry_run previews and create_note summaries but does not detail error behavior or permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, essential information front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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 7-parameter tool with open world annotation and no output schema, the description covers key behaviors (patch application, dry run, note creation). Return format is not described but acceptable given annotations.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by explaining dry_run's preview purpose and create_note's summarization function beyond the schema's brief fields.

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 tool applies a patch to issue descriptions, specifying patch types (search/replace, unified diff). It distinguishes itself from full update tools by highlighting reduced token usage for small changes.

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?

Description explains when to use (small changes to save tokens) and mentions options like dry_run and create_note. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like update_issue or mention when not to use.

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