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. 'Update' only implies mutation; it doesn't reveal partial-update semantics, the need to supply both project_id and issue_iid to identify the target, the unusual requirement that issue_type be provided on an update, or what the response contains.

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 with no wasted words, and the verb-object-scope structure is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity results from under-specification rather than deliberate pruning.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far from complete. The schema covers parameter names, but the description fails to convey update semantics, how the target issue is identified, and expected outcomes.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters with descriptions and enums, establishing the baseline of 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema carries the load adequately.

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 issue in a GitLab project'), which is enough to separate it from obvious siblings like create_issue, get_issue, and delete_issue. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close relatives such as update_issue_note, and it omits any mention of which attributes are updatable.

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. With over 100 siblings including create_issue, get_issue, delete_issue, and update_issue_note, the agent receives no routing help, prerequisites, or exclusions to direct it correctly.

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