Assign Issue

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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and open-world behavior; the description adds real value by disclosing the dedicated endpoint (PUT /issue/{key}/assignee) and the reliability difference versus jira_update_issue. It does not address permission requirements or the side effect that reassigning silently drops the prior assignee, which is notable given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the sibling comparison and rationale. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries selection-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needs only selection guidance, which it provides. It stops short of mentioning that the assignee must exist (see jira_search_assignable_users) or notification side effects, but nothing essential for a correct invocation 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 both parameters are already documented, including the unassign convention and accepted identifier formats. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the endpoint path, matching the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assign a Jira issue to a user') and immediately names the sibling it replaces, jira_update_issue, so an agent can distinguish it without reading further.

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?

Explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the alternative ('more reliable than setting assignee via update_issue, which is silently ignored by some Jira configurations') and gives the reason. The unassign path is covered by the schema's assignee description, so no ambiguity remains.

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