update_repo_issue

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses that labels replace existing, title/body keep existing if None, and returns a URL and issue_id. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or prerequisites like repo/issue existence, which would be expected for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 concise with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameter behaviors and return type. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites but is adequate for a mutation tool. The output schema reduces the need for return details.

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 40% (2 of 5 param descriptions) according to context, so the description adds value by explaining that title and body keep existing if None, and labels replaces existing labels. This clarifies behavior beyond 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 clearly states 'update an existing issue on a repository' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_repo_issue and delete_repo_issue.

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 implies usage for updating issues, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like create_repo_issue or delete_repo_issue. The context from sibling names helps differentiate.

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