manageJiraProjectVersionRelatedWork

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no note on required permissions, whether updating overwrites existing fields, or what happens to the URL/title on update — the interesting behavioral questions for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is concise, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 five-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin — it should carry the behavioral and parameter burden that annotations and schema do not, and it does not.

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 only 40%, and 4 of 5 parameters are required, yet the description mentions no parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the undocumented versionId, title, and url fields, nor does it explain the create/update toggle beyond what the schema's relatedWorkId description already states.

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 pair (create or update) and resource (related work links on a version), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling read tools like getJiraProjectVersionRelatedWork and manageJiraProjectVersion. Minor friction: the description says 'space version' while the name and siblings use Jira project versions, creating a small terminology mismatch.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus getJiraProjectVersionRelatedWork (read) or manageJiraProjectVersion (version CRUD). The create-vs-update condition is only implied, and that detail actually lives in the schema, not the description.

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