Update Issue

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'update' and 'changing' reinforce this. It mentions raising ValueError for read-only mode, but lacks details on permissions needed or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description adds modest context.

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 structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections, but includes parameter details that are redundant with the schema. It could be more concise while still being clear.

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 covers all parameters, return value, and raises clause. With an output schema present (not shown), the description adequately explains behavior. However, it omits rate limits or authentication specifics, which are not critical for completeness given the tool complexity.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., field format, patterns). The description adds minimal extra value, such as noting Markdown for description, but mostly repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an existing Jira issue, listing specific actions like changing status, adding Epic links, and updating fields. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Update Issue') and distinguishes from sibling tools like create and delete, though it overlaps with jira_transition_issue and jira_link_to_epic.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like jira_transition_issue or jira_link_to_epic. It lists those capabilities but doesn't clarify that dedicated tools might be preferred for specific use cases.

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