jira_update_issue

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only restates the schema fields without explaining mutation semantics (e.g., whether labels are replaced wholesale, whether partial updates are supported, or permission requirements). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that it updates fields.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. The key action is front-loaded and the field list is compact. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a relatively simple update operation with a rich schema, but the description omits any mention of return value or side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail (e.g., that only specified fields are changed) would improve completeness. Still, the schema explains the parameters, so it meets the minimum viable level.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond listing field names, which already appear in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 clearly states 'Update fields on a JIRA issue' and enumerates the specific fields (summary, description, assignee, priority, labels, custom fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_transition_issue (status changes) and jira_add_comment.

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 explicit when-to-use or exclusionary guidance is provided. The list of updatable fields gives an implicit sense of scope (e.g., status transitions are not listed), but the description does not direct the agent to alternatives or warn against misuse. It merely states what it can update.

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