jira_clone_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that it fetches source fields, verifies each field against target create-screen metadata, excludes unavailable fields and records them under excluded_fields, creates a Cloners link, and raises ValueError in read-only mode or on invalid inputs. This goes well beyond a minimal behavioral statement and adds real transparency.

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 longer than average, but nearly every sentence carries useful information: the one-line purpose, the rationale about Jira's missing endpoint, the field-verification behavior, parameter summary, return value, and exceptions. The Args section partly duplicates schema descriptions, so it is not maximally concise, but it is still well organized and front-loaded.

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's complexity, the description is complete: it explains what is copied, how fields are validated, what the response contains, which parameters affect behavior, and what errors can occur. The output schema and schema descriptions already cover structured details, so no important operational context needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including defaults and examples. The description's Args section reinforces the parameter semantics and adds complementary context, such as excluding unavailable fields and including an additional_fields override example, though most meaning is already present in 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?

The description opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Clone an existing Jira issue by copying its fields into a new issue,' and explicitly contrasts itself with Jira's lack of a clone endpoint, distinguishing it from the create_issue siblings. It states concrete behavior: copy fields, create issue, and create a Cloners link, leaving no ambiguity about what tool this is.

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 clearly explains the intended use case: reproducing Jira's built-in Clone action, including which fields are copied and how unavailable fields are handled. It does not explicitly say 'use jira_create_issue instead for blank issues,' so it stops short of naming alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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