update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose valuable behavior: partial-update semantics and which fields are replaced wholesale ('Replace all labels', 'Replace all fix versions', 'Replace all components'). However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether passing null clears a field, error behavior for invalid keys, and other operational traits.

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 core purpose and the key partial-update rule are front-loaded in two short sentences, followed by an organized per-parameter list. The Arg list largely mirrors parameter names but consistently adds value, so little is wasted.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema that handles returns, the description covers purpose, per-parameter meaning, and replacement semantics well. Remaining gaps are null-handling behavior, permission requirements, and validation/error expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all 13 parameters are documented with meaning beyond their types, including format hints (issue key example 'KAN-123', dates as YYYY-MM-DD), rich-text markup support for description, and explicit replace-vs-set semantics for list fields. Only custom_fields is left somewhat thin ('dict of custom field IDs to values').

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing Jira issue') and adds the key semantic that only provided fields are changed, which distinguishes it as a partial update. It does not differentiate from siblings like transition_issue or bulk_transition, which also modify issues, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as transition_issue for status changes or create_issue for new items. The agent must infer everything from the tool name and the sibling list.

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