Jira PATCH Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains the partial update behavior ('PATCH only updates the fields you specify'), mentions output format options (TOON vs JSON), provides cost optimization guidance with jq filtering, and includes API reference. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides substantial behavioral 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 well-structured with clear sections (IMPORTANT note, output format, common operations). It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 5 parameters, though the 'Common operations' section with 3 examples is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context: explains partial update semantics, gives concrete examples, includes API reference, and addresses cost optimization. It could benefit from more explicit error handling or permission requirements, but covers the essential behavioral aspects well.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of jq ('Cost Optimization: Use jq param to filter response fields') and outputFormat options, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for path, queryParams, or body beyond what the schema already documents thoroughly.

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's purpose: 'Partially update Jira resources' with the specific verb 'update' and resource 'Jira resources'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying PATCH semantics (partial updates) versus PUT (full replacement) or other HTTP methods, making the distinction explicit.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for partial updates where only specified fields are changed. It distinguishes from alternatives by contrasting with PUT (implied full replacement) and other siblings like GET (read-only) or DELETE (removal). The 'Common operations' section gives concrete examples of appropriate use cases.

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