jira_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility. It discloses that labels overwrite existing ones, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, side effects of partial updates, or return behavior.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core action and examples. The abbreviation 'ecc.' slightly detracts, but overall concise and efficient.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits success/error responses, partial update behavior, and prerequisite conditions.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond listing fields; the labels overwrite detail is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 updates existing JIRA issue fields, listing examples (summary, description, priority, assignee, labels). It distinguishes from creation tools like jira_create_issue and transition tools like jira_transition_issue, though it does not explicitly differentiate from jira_assign_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?

Usage is implied for general field updates, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like jira_assign_issue which handles only assignee changes.

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