update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description does not disclose mutation implications, partial update behavior, or reversibility. It only repeats the action and field list, offering no additional context beyond what the name implies.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. Each sentence provides distinct value: what it does, when to use it, and the status-change alternative.

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 description covers purpose, use case, and a key alternative. However, it does not mention whether unspecified fields remain unchanged or what the response contains, which would be useful for a mutation tool without an output schema.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists field names without adding any extra meaning, such as update semantics for omitted fields.

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 uses 'Update fields of an existing Jira issue' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the affected fields. It also distinguishes itself from transition_issue by explicitly redirecting status changes.

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?

It states 'Use to enrich a security incident with investigation findings' and explicitly says 'To change status, use transition_issue instead.' This provides both a suggested use case and a clear alternative.

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