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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavior: partial updates ('Only what you pass is changed'), permission requirements, rename behavior ('An issue that carries the version goes on carrying it under a new name'), archive semantics including reversibility, and the return shape matching list_versions.

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 front-loaded and appropriately detailed for a mutation tool with seven parameters. Some explanatory material, such as the fixVersions and JQL examples, is useful domain context but slightly more than strictly needed to invoke the tool.

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?

Given seven parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the essential operational context: mutation scope, permissions, archiving, renaming behavior, return shape, and the alternative release_version tool. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds important update semantics ('Only what you pass is changed') and explains archiving, but its phrase 'days' is less precise than the schema's separate startDate and releaseDate fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change a version'. It enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, dates, archived) and explicitly distinguishes this tool from release_version, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 states when to use this tool and when not to: 'Releasing is release_version's, not this tool's.' It also gives the precondition 'Project lead or admin only' and explains that only supplied fields change, which directly guides invocation.

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