Assign issue

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

It discloses validation failures ('both together... ambiguous, neither... intentless'), states that Jira Cloud accepts only accountId, and clarifies idempotency by noting that re-assigning the current assignee succeeds. This goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation and the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint flags, with no contradiction.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the critical selection constraint, then the idempotency note. Every sentence earns its place and the description avoids repeating schema details verbatim.

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 write operation with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the core call semantics are complete. The main gap is the absence of an explicit return-value description, but the schema's apply and plan_id fields already explain the plan/execute flow.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by spelling out the consequences of the mutual-exclusion rule (ambiguous vs. intentless errors) and reinforcing the accountId-only lookup path for assignee selection.

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 first sentence states a precise action — 'Set or clear the assignee of one issue' — with a specific resource and operation. This clearly distinguishes it from update, transition, and comment sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 clear procedural guidance: pass exactly one of accountId or unassign:true, and use jira_search_users to convert display names or emails into accountIds. It does not explicitly name jira_update_issue as an alternative, but the dedicated assignee wording makes the intended use unambiguous.

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