jira_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that fields are updated. It does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether updates are partial or full-replacement, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. The schema's 'Replace labels' and ADF-conversion notes add detail, but the description itself is minimal.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target and efficiently conveys the core purpose. Nothing extraneous is present.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too terse. It omits partial-update behavior, expected response, and when to choose this over jira_transition_issue. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not complete the operational picture for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the schema property descriptions like 'Replace labels with this array' and 'New summary' carry that burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('fields on an existing Jira issue'), which distinguishes it from create/comment/transition tools. It clearly names the action and target, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from jira_transition_issue, which also updates an issue.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_create_issue, jira_transition_issue, or jira_add_comment. The usage is only implied by the word 'Update'; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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