editJiraEntityProperty

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the 'key/value store' framing and the entity-type scope, but says nothing about overwriting an existing property value, required permissions, or reversibility.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource with no padding. The trailing enumeration of entity types is slightly redundant with the schema, and 'an work item' is a minor grammatical slip.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain the per-entity-type parameter combinations or the overwrite semantics. The schema descriptions cover most of the conditional wiring, but the description does little to compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 71% and the schema already documents the conditional parameters (accountId for user, dashboardId for dashboardItem, issueIdOrKey for worklog, entityId otherwise). The description only restates the entity-type list that the entityType enum already carries, adding no format or conditional detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Set') and resource ('property in the key/value store') and enumerates the entity types it applies to, which is enough for an agent to recognize a write-to-property operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling getJiraEntityProperty (its read counterpart), so it stops 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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is not told to prefer getJiraEntityProperty for reads or that this overwrites an existing value, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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