editJiraIssue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and retry profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — that only fields editable on that work item may be set — but says nothing about permission requirements, the effect of notifyUsers, or whether unspecified fields are left untouched.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of missing detail rather than deliberate tightness.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with two open-ended nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know what to put in fields versus update, what notifyUsers defaults to, or what a successful edit returns.

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 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, none of the semantics are documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'fields' only loosely gestures at the fields and update objects; issueIdOrKey, notifyUsers, and especially the empty-but-open nested fields/update shapes (additionalProperties: true) get no explanation of expected contents or format.

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 (Edit) and resource (existing work item), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings that also mutate an issue, such as transitionJiraIssue, addOrEditJiraIssueComment, or editJiraEntityProperty, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 and no mention of alternatives. Given a sibling list containing transitionJiraIssue, addOrEditJiraIssueComment, and addOrEditJiraIssueWorklog, the description never explains why an agent should route a change to editJiraIssue rather than one of those. Usage is only implied by the name.

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