update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only reveals that the issue is mutated. It does not state that labels are replaced rather than merged, that state can transition between opened and closed, or what happens to fields that are not passed. The schema hints at some of this, but the description itself adds almost no behavioral context beyond the verb 'update'.

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 seven-word sentence that front-loads the action verb and names the target resource. It is efficient and scannable, though the brevity borders on under-specification since it omits usage and behavior guidance that would make it more useful.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify label replacement semantics, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what the tool returns on success. The schema documents parameters, but key behavioral and return-value context is absent.

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 all 7 parameters already have type, purpose, and example documentation in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing issue in a GitLab repository'), and the qualifier 'existing' implicitly separates it from the sibling create_issue. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against other overlapping siblings like add_issue_comment or the update_merge_request_branch tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as create_issue, get_issue, and add_issue_comment exist, but the description offers no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints to help an agent choose between creating, reading, commenting on, or updating an issue.

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