Update component

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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description reveals important behavioral details: omitted fields retain their current values, passing an empty description clears it, calls without a changed field are refused, project reassignment is disallowed, and admin permission is required. These are not inferable from the annotations alone.

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?

Four concise sentences, each carrying non-redundant information: the partial-update semantic, clearing behavior, no-op refusal, and constraints/permission. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 the rich input schema that already documents apply/plan_id/profile behavior, the description covers the remaining decision-relevant context: update semantics, permission requirements, and a key domain constraint. No critical selection or invocation information 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?

The schema already covers all 8 parameters with solid descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by asserting that every omitted field keeps its current value and that an empty description is a valid clearing operation, which helps an agent reason about parameter combinations.

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 opens with a specific action and resource ('Changes a component') and immediately characterizes the update as PARTIAL, distinguishing it from jira_update_issue. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs from related update tools.

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?

It explicitly describes when to use this tool's partial-update semantics, warns that a no-op call is refused, states that the component cannot be moved to another project, and names the required permission. This gives concrete conditions for invoking or avoiding the call.

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