Update version

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: partial updates, refusal of calls with no changed field, releasing not affecting issues, and the permission prerequisite. These details are beyond what annotations provide and are consistent with them.

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 dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the sibling distinction, edge-case handling, and a safety/caveat note. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, this is complete for an update tool: the schema fully documents all 10 parameters and the description covers permission, partial-update semantics, no-op refusal, and the fact that releasing does not change issues. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enriches all parameters with a global partial-update rule ('only the fields you pass are changed and everything you omit keeps its current value') and clarifies that an empty description clears the field and a no-op call is refused. This elevates it above baseline since it frames how every parameter behaves.

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 verb+resource ('Changes a version') and immediately maps the two core intents: cut a release (released: true) and un-cut it (released: false). It explicitly contrasts itself with jira_update_issue by highlighting the partial-update model, making the tool's identity clear relative to siblings.

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 names jira_update_issue as a direct alternative and explains the semantic difference, and it gives a clear permission requirement ('Administer projects'). It does not explicitly state 'use jira_create_version to create a new version' or give when-not conditions, but the context strongly implies updating existing versions only.

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