update_issue

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing mutation behavior. It says 'modifies' and warns about ADF format, but does not clarify whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether customFields replaces the whole object, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. Much of the ADF note duplicates the schema.

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 concise sentences with the purpose stated first and the critical ADF caution second. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler.

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 mutating tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description plus schema is usable but incomplete. It does not clarify partial-vs-full update semantics or how customFields should be structured, both of which are relevant for correct invocation. The get_issue guidance helps but only covers one part of the surface.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the get_issue workflow, but does not add new meaning for labels, summary, assignee, priority, or customFields beyond what the schema already states.

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 '이슈 필드를 수정합니다' clearly states the action (modify) and the resource (issue fields). It is distinguishable from create_issue and add_comment, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling transition_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?

It provides a concrete workflow: use get_issue to check the current ADF before modifying the description, naming the relevant sibling tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus transition_issue, but the field-editing context is clear.

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