Jira PATCH Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default output format (TOON), the option to switch to JSON, the cost-optimization with jq, and the partial-update semantics. It does not mention authentication, error handling, or rate limits, but the provided behavior is substantial for a generic REST client.

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 well-structured with clear sections for introduction, cost optimization, output format, common operations, and a note on PATCH semantics. Despite its length, each sentence provides valuable information, and key details like partial update behavior and output format are 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?

The description is thorough for a tool with five parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. It covers common use cases, parameter examples, and output behavior. It lacks details on error responses and authorization, but the provided information is sufficient for typical invocation and is complemented by an API reference link.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond parameter names by providing concrete body examples for different update operations (issue, comment, worklog), path patterns, and jq usage for response filtering. This enriches the schema descriptions with practical usage context.

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 the tool performs partial updates to Jira resources, using the specific verb 'PATCH' and identifying the resource scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing partial updates that leave other fields unchanged, contrasting with jira_put for full updates.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, such as updating issue fields, comments, and worklogs. It explicitly notes that PATCH only updates specified fields, implying it's for partial modifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like jira_put or jira_post for full updates or creation, though the sibling names make this inferable.

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