jira_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior but only provides routing and authentication context. It does not mention that this tool mutates data (updates an issue), potential side effects, or return value details, leaving significant 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 short (three sentences) but includes boilerplate routing info that may not be essential for the agent. It is not verbose, but the structure could be improved by front-loading the tool's actual purpose.

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 tool has a single parameter and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on input format, expected behavior, result structure, and usage context, making it nearly unusable for an agent.

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 description states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments but fails to explain what keys or values that JSON should contain. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent guessing the required 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?

The description merely restates the tool name as 'Jira connector operation update_issue' without explaining what updating an issue entails. It fails to differentiate from siblings like jira_transition_issue or jira_update_custom_fields, leaving the agent unclear on the tool's specific function.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus other Jira tools (e.g., jira_create_issue, jira_transition_issue). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternatives, making it hard for the agent to select the correct tool.

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