update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed') and calls out Markdown support for descriptions. But it omits other behavioral detail such as required permissions, error behavior, reversibility, or what the tool returns, which remains a gap for a mutating tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action and the critical partial-update behavior. The second sentence about Markdown is somewhat redundant with the schema but still adds emphasis. It is appropriately compact overall, though the brevity leaves completeness gaps captured in other dimensions.

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?

The description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably choose among siblings, especially because update_task_status appears nearby and the description never clarifies that status is not a field to update here. There is no output or error information, and no explicit mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Given no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed.

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 already documents every parameter. The description adds one useful nuance—that only provided fields change—and mentions Markdown support, but this largely overlaps with the schema's own parameter descriptions. This is a solid baseline-3 contribution rather than meaningfully richer semantics.

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 verb (Update), resource (fields on an existing Jira issue), and that it modifies an existing record, distinguishing it from create_task. However it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from update_task_status, and the phrase 'fields' could be read broadly enough to include status without clarification.

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 gives no scenario guidance and names no alternatives, failing to route the agent between update_task and the nearby sibling update_task_status. The only related hint is 'existing' Jira issue, which implies not for creation, but this is indirect. 'Only provided fields are changed' is more behavioral than usage guidance.

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