Jira PUT Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a full replacement operation (not partial), returns TOON format by default with JSON as alternative, includes cost optimization guidance about using jq to reduce token costs, and references external API documentation. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers most operational aspects.

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, API reference) and uses bold effectively. While comprehensive, some information like the API reference URL could be considered extraneous since the tool should be self-contained, but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal wasted text.

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 complex 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering operation type, format options, cost considerations, and common use cases. It could benefit from more explicit information about authentication requirements, error handling, or response structure, but provides substantial context for effective use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the jq parameter's purpose for cost optimization and providing outputFormat context, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of path, queryParams, or body parameters 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 performs 'Replace Jira resources (full update)' with the verb 'replace' and resource 'Jira resources', distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_patch (partial updates) and jira_post (create). It specifies this is for full updates only, not partial ones.

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 ('PUT replaces the entire resource') and when to use alternatives ('For partial updates, prefer PATCH'), directly naming the jira_patch sibling. It also includes common operation examples that help identify appropriate use cases.

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