Jira PUT Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that PUT replaces the entire resource (a key destructive behavior), explains the default TOON output format, and highlights the jq parameter for cost optimization. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial and useful.

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 bold headers, a clear one-sentence summary, and a numbered list of examples. It is slightly longer than minimal, but each section serves a purpose—clarifying output format, cost optimization, and typical endpoints—so it remains efficient.

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 has no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params, nested body). The description covers key operational contexts: full-update semantics, default output format, and common use cases. It could mention idempotency or authentication, but HTTP PUT semantics and the API reference provide sufficient completeness for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete example paths and bodies for common operations, and by reinforcing the purpose of jq in reducing token costs. This goes beyond simple schema repetition.

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 'Replace Jira resources (full update)' which precisely states the action and scope. The note 'For partial updates, prefer PATCH' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling jira_patch tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it states when to use PUT (full replacement) and when not to (partial updates, prefer PATCH). It also provides common operation examples (update issue, update project, set property) and a cost-optimization tip with jq, which further clarifies appropriate usage.

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