update_issue

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

Annotations only contain openWorldHint=true, which doesn't cover safety. The description discloses that it mutates issue state, requires issue-edit permission, and that errors are validation/permission/conflict - all beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention reversibility or specific side effects beyond state mutation, but for an update operation with these disclosures, a 4 is appropriate. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return behavior, then alternatives, then mutation/safety context. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient given the 14-parameter surface area.

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 14-param mutation tool with no output schema but complete schema descriptions, the description covers the key context: what it does, when to use alternatives, what it returns, and its error modes. It doesn't enumerate which fields can be changed together or detail specific validation rules, but the schema provides field-level descriptions. A 4 is reasonable - it's complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with minor gaps on combined-field constraints.

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 fully documents all 14 parameters. The description doesn't add much to parameter meaning beyond noting full_response for the complete object. Following the calibration rule, baseline is 3 when schema covers everything - the description adds only minimal extra context, so 3 is correct.

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 clear verb ('Update an issue') plus the primary resource, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming update_issue_description_patch, create_issue_note, and delete_issue. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does compared to related tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to change fields on an existing issue', and explicitly lists alternatives with conditions ('use update_issue_description_patch for a targeted description edit... use create_issue_note for discussion'). It also implies when not to use it. This is strong guidance.

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