jira_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait that labels are modified incrementally (addLabels/removeLabels leave other labels untouched). However, it does not mention other side effects like permissions, whether summary/description are fully replaced, or what the response format is, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add a critical behavioral detail. There is no redundant information or fluff.

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 high schema coverage and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the main action, the fields involved, and a key edge case (label accumulation). It does not mention return values, but that is not required since no output schema exists and the focus is on the operation itself.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the incremental behavior of addLabels/removeLabels, which is not obvious from the schema alone and clarifies the semantics of these parameters.

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 updates summary, description, and/or labels of a Jira issue, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like jira_create_issue, jira_assign_issue, and jira_transition_issue by listing the exact fields it modifies.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to update those fields) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It does, however, add a key usage nuance about incremental label modification, which helps the agent choose this over a full overwrite tool.

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