Jira PATCH Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers substantial behavioral context: it explains the partial update nature of PATCH, mentions default TOON output format with token optimization benefits, provides concrete endpoint examples, and emphasizes cost considerations. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides significant operational guidance.

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 well-structured with clear sections (IMPORTANT note, output format, common operations) and front-loads key information. While slightly longer than ideal, every sentence adds value: the cost optimization warning, format explanation, and concrete examples all help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 complex mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: it explains the PATCH behavior, gives endpoint examples, covers output formats, and includes cost optimization guidance. The main gap is lack of explicit information about authentication requirements or error handling, but overall it's quite complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by emphasizing the jq parameter for cost optimization and explaining outputFormat choices, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema. The common operations section implicitly illustrates body parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Partially update') and resource ('Jira resources'), distinguishing it from siblings like jira_put (full update) and jira_get (read). It explicitly mentions PATCH semantics where only specified fields are updated, leaving others unchanged.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it's for partial updates (contrasting with jira_put for full updates), includes common operation examples with specific endpoints, and mentions cost optimization via the jq parameter. The API reference link further supports proper usage.

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